APHC010477452015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 27040/2015 Between: M.pramila, Krishna District Prl Secy Municipal Admn Urban Devt Hyderabad Anr and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G JHANSI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 2. S PRANATHI 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 27040/2015 M.pramila, Krishna District ...PETITIONER AND Prl Secy Municipal Admn Urban Devt Hyderabad Anr and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) [3333] ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 The Court made the following Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not acting upon the application of the petitioner as acknowledged by the 2nd respondent on 25.04.2015 and not granting the permission for release of lay out under the deeming provision of Section 110 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act 2014 even after receiving the intimation of invocation of Section 110 (4) of the Act on 01.08.2015 after the expiry of 98 days as illegal arbitrary capricious and violation of Article 19 1 g Article 301 of the Constitution of India and Section 110 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act 2014 and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to release the lay out in an extent of Ac.8.00 cents in R.S.No.331/2 P of Sunkollu Village, Nuzvid Mandal Krishna District as deemed to have been approved and granted under Section 110 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act 2014..” The writ petition is filed challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in not releasing the layout plan as per the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014. 3 02. The case of the petitioner is that she is absolute owner of land to an extent of Ac.8.00 cents in R.S.No.331/2(P) of Sunkollu Village, Nuzvid Mandal, Krishna District and is undertaking the development in the land. The subject lands comes within the urban area notified by the Government under the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 way back in the year 2012 and there was no master plan till now. As the petitoenr is intending to develop the residential area, he submitted an application by paying requisite fee of Rs.34,000/- which is acknowledged by the 2nd respondent vide RC.No.L/JPO/95/2015. But the 2nd respondent refused to receive the said application as no land conversion certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer for conversion of land under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion For Non- Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006. The petitioner submitted an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid by paying an amount of Rs.1,43,100/- towards conversion charges, seeking land conversion and accordingly proceedings were issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings in D.Dis.(G).1323/2015 dated 24.04.2015 converting the agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose. Even after receipt of said 4 proceedings, the 2nd respondent is not issuing layout plan and postponing the same on one pretext or other. This action of 2nd respondent is contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Act, 2014. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 03. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit contended that the 2nd respondent is delaying the process of issuance of layout plan for one reason or the other, inspite of furnishing the required documents including the land conversion certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Hence, he prays for a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue a residential layout plan. 04. On the other hand, Ms.S.Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority appearing for the 2nd respondent, furnished a copy of the instructions given by the 2nd respondent, wherein it is stated that the application of the petitioner was rejected by the proceedings vide Rc.No.L-APO-95/2015 dated 08.07.2015, duly mentioning that “the Authority has proposed to protect agricultural lands as conserved areas and protect them from urbanization in 5 the interest of Environment and food security of this region. It is further stated that a decision has been taken, the layouts are being approved only in a radius of 500m from the exisiting village settlement/habitation for the areas where the ZDP’s are not prepared. The site is located 1110m away from the village settlement. Hence, the proposal is rejected and unapproved plans are returned”. She further submits that as per Sec.110(4) of APCRDA Act, “if within sixty days after the receipt of the application made under this section for development permission for layout or such similar land development scheme or construction of building or of any information or further information required, the Commissioner has neither granted nor refused the permission, such permission shall be deemed to have been granted and the applicant after intimating the Commissioner in writing, may proceed to carry out the development but not so as to contravene any of the provisions of the Act or plans or schemes or any rules or regulations made under the Act”. It is further stated that in the case of the petitioner, the said proposals were rejected by the office vide proceedings Rc.No.L-APO- 95/2015 dated 08.07.2015 even before the representation dated 01.08.2015 of the applicant and the reason for the rejection is 6 “the site is located 1110m away from the village settlement in contravene with the G.O.Ms.No.44 dated 21.01.2009, special regulations rule (ii). Hence, the provisions of Section 110(4) of the APCRDA Act may not be applicable. The 2nd respondent further stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh have introduced online building permission system for process of all building permissions as well as layout permissions and no manual applications are considered. Further, vide G.O.Ms.No.113 dated 28.08.2023, the Government has withdrawn the earlier decision and directed to consider the layouts beyond 500m also. Hence, the petitioner is advised to apply afresh for approval of said layout proposal through Online Building Permission System. 05. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in view of the fact that, the petitioner made an application for release of layout plan and the same was rejected by the 2nd respondent even before the representation dated 01.08.2015 made by the petitioner and in view of the scheme proposed by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.113 dated 28.08.2023 for considering the layouts beyond 500mts also through online building system for processing the building permissions and as 7 well as layout permissions, this court is of the considered view, that the petitioner is at liberty to afresh apply through such process for approval of layout permissions. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit his application afresh for layout permission through the on-line building permission system introduced by the Government in the G.O.Ms.No.113 dated 28.08.2023 and the same may be considered in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 11.02.2025 KKV 8 184 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 27040/2015 Date: 07.02.2025 KKV