APHC010718102012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 40371/2012 Between: C. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. C. Verkata Reddy, (died) and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. HARISH KUMAR RASINENI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 4. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or declaring the action of the respondents No. 1 to 4 in not considering the representation of the petitioner for returning the land to an extent of Ac.0-10 cents in Sy. No. 55/2E2 situated at Anantapur Town, Anantapur District under rule 10(3) of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Lay-out) Rules 1970 is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 6 to consider the request of the petitioner to handover land to an extent of Ac.0-10 cents in Sy. No. 55/2E2 situated at Anantapur Town, Anantapur District…” 2. The 1st petitioner has filed the present petition with the aforesaid prayer, pending which, he has passed away, as such, the wife of the 1st petitioner was arraigned in the present petition as petitioner No.2. The 1st petitioner was the owner of the land in Sy.No.55/2 to an extent of Acs.1.16 cents on Anantapur Municipal Corporation of Anantapur Town and Mandal. The petitioner has made an application to the 3rd respondent for approval of layout in the year 2000, pursuant to which the 3rd respondent has approved the same and accordingly, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 07.07.2000 approved the layout in LP.No.58/2000 for 12 plots with an open space of 10% kept for public purpose which has to be handed over to the municipality through a registered gift deed. As such, the petitioner has executed a deed of settlement transferring Acs.0.10 cents of land to the 3rd respondent herein vide registered document No.1124/2002, dated 11.11.2002. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner has sold the plots in favour of third parties, but, the said land to an extent of Acs.0.10 cents is lying waste and the same is not being utilized for any public purpose. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per Rule 10(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Lay-out) Rules, 1970, the petitioner can get back the land on payment of average market value after approval of council with the permission of the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted an application on 11.09.2012 to the 3rd respondent requesting to return the said land as per Rule 10(3) of the layout rules, duly enclosing layout copies, but, the same was neither rejected nor was considered. The petitioner has again submitted an application on 09.11.2012 with a similar request, but no steps were initiated in pursuance of the petitioner’s representation. Challenging the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not considering the petitioner’s application for returning the land to an extent of Acs.0.10 cents in Sy.No.55/2E2 situated at Anantapur Town, Anantapur District under rule 10(3) of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Lay-out) Rules, 1970, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed counter affidavits on similar lines stating that the petitioner has handed over the land to an extent of Acs.0.10 cents of open space in the approved layout of L.P.No.58/2000 and the petitioner cannot question about the utilization of open space as it was a gifted property. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.72 MA, dated 20.02.2002 has issued orders not to entertain the de-reservation of open space of approved layout gifted by the owners of the site, though it does not form part of compact block as a smaller area can be utilized for public purpose. It is further stated that as per Rule 10(3) of the layout rules, the council is at liberty to dispose such land with the concurrence of Director of Town and Country Planning, but, it is not mandatory to dispose all such open spaces and the council has got independence and discretion to reject such claims. It is further stated that the representations submitted by the petitioner on 11.09.2012 and 09.11.2012 were returned with necessary endorsement and no application is pending in the Corporation as there is no scope in the representation to consider the request favourably after the issuance of the orders by the Government. Hence requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri. A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Administration and Urban Development. 6. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of instructions of the Assistant City Planner, Municipal Corporation, Ananthapuramu, dated 23.01.2025 wherein it is stated that the petitioner’s representations dated 11.09.2012 and 09.11.2012 were returned with an endorsement vide Rc.No.7971/2012/G1, dated 16.11.2012, a copy of which is also produced before this Court and that as on today, no application is pending in the Municipal Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the other side denied the service of the said endorsement dated 16.11.2012 on the petitioner. 7. It can be seen that the petitioner has submitted two applications on 11.09.2012 and 09.11.2012 requesting to return the land to an extent of Acs.0.10 cents in Sy.No.55/2E2 situated at Anantapur Town, Anantapur District under rule 10(3) of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Lay-out) Rules, 1970. But, on a perusal of the instructions submitted by learned Standing Counsel, it can be seen that the said representations were returned with an endorsement vide Rc.No.7971/2012/G1, dated 16.11.2012. But, on a perusal of the said endorsement dated 16.11.2012, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, nowhere it can be seen that the said endorsement was acknowledged by the petitioner nor the respondents have produced any document to prove that the said endorsement was served on the petitioner. 8. In view of the same, the respondents are directed to pass fresh orders on the representations dated 11.09.2012 and 09.11.2012 made by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:24.01.2025 Gss