APHC010439402023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 22753 OF 2023 Between: 1. STM Township Senior Citizen Association,, Rep by its President, B. Raghava Reddy, S/o B. Lakshmi Reddy, Aged about 73 Years, R/o HIG-58, Road No.2, STM Township, Kadapa. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rept. By its Principal Secretary, Housing Development Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The A P Housing Board, Rep by its Managing Director, near Skoda show room, Prasadampadu, Currency Nagar, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 521108. Ct is amended as per the Order of this Court, dt.11.09.2023 vide order passed in I.A.2 of 2023. 3. The Executive Engineer, A.P. Housing Board, Kalukuripalli House Board, Nellore. 4. The Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 5. Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Director, MGM Capital Building, Ground Floor, Back side of Dr.YSR Arogyasri Health care Trust, NH-16 Service Road, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 6. District Town and Country Planning Officer, DTCP, 29-A, H. No. 1/2226, MIGH, A.P.H.B Colony, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa. 2 7. K K Sherwani S/o M K Sherwani, R/o Phase I/86, Praneeth Nature's Bounty, Bowrampet, Hyderabad - 500 043. R7 is impleaded as per Order of the Court dt.04.01.2023 vide order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2023. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: T D PANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: VAJJHALA SATYANARAYANA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents:KALAVA SURESH KUMAR REDDY ( SC FOR MC RAYAL REGION, NELLORE) Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR HOUSING Counsel for the Respondents:Y V SRINIVASAN(SC FOR AP HOUSING BOARD) 3 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Counsel for the Unofficial Respondent No.7, Sri P. Soma Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical & Health and Housing Department and Sri Y.V. Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. Housing Board representing for Respondent No.2 (appearing through video conference). 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking following relief : - “…… to issue Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Challenging the action of the Respondents No. 2 and 3 in selling the plots in Left over open space in approved layout vide TLP No. 1124/81/2014/AP, dt.04.08.2014 without obtaining any necessary approval from the competent authorities i.e. Respondents No. 4 to 6 and tamper/ revised the original layout without consent of the respective purchasers of HIG and MIG in Singapore Town Ship, Puthalampalli, Kadapa is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Provisions of A.P.M.R. and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 and consequently direct the respondent no. 2 and 3 not to proceed with any development activity without prior approval from authorities and consent of petitioner and further direct the respondent no.2 and 3 not to disturbed the amenities in approved layout in TLP No.1124/81/2014/AP, dt.04-08-2014 in their future schemes and pass……” Case of the Writ Petitioner: 3. It is the case of the Petitioner Society that the Housing Board (Respondent No.2) has acquired about Ac.69.64 cents. The Respondent No.2 has intended to develop the entire extent of land, but, in a phased manner. The Respondent No.2 has submitted a layout plan and got the same approved from the Government in respect of the first phase. 4. The Petitioner is a society that is formed by the purchasers of various plots in the first phase. The Petitioner Society has filed the present Writ 4 Petition against the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 alleging that the said Respondents have started selling the plots by plotting the Open Space in the approved layout vide T.L.P.No.1124/81/2014/AP, without obtaining any necessary approval. The Open Space is in the form of a „triangle‟ on the western side of the entire layout of an extent of about Ac.7.00 cents. Contentions of Official Respondents: 5(a) Respondent Nos.2 & 3 namely the A.P Housing Board represented by its Vice-chairman and the Executive Engineer of Respondent Nos.2 & 3 have jointly filed Counter Affidavit on 23.09.2023. The said Respondents have raised the preliminary objection of maintainability on the ground of locus as well as on the ground that the Writ Petitioner Association which is a Senior Citizens Association does not represents the interest of all the Respondents. 5(b) The Respondent Nos.2 & 3, in their Counter Affidavit, submits that the Respondent No.2 has conceded this Housing Scheme as Middle Income Group (MIG) and High Income Group (HIG) houses. For this purpose, the Respondent No.2 has purchased an extent of Ac.69.64 cents from the Department of Revenue by paying market value of Rs.20,00,000/- per acre situated in Sy.Nos.251 to 257 and 262 in Putlampalli Village, Kadapa District. To this effect, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.344, (Rev Assin-IV) Department, dated 15.03.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.269, (Rev Assin-IV) Department, dated 23.04.2009. It is further stated in the Counter Affidavit that by virtue of the above mentioned transaction, the Respondent No.2 has became an absolute owner of an extent of Ac.69.64 cents. 5(c) It is further stated in the Counter Affidavit of Respondent Nos.2 & 3 that Respondent No.2 has obtained a layout approval vide T.L.P.No.1124/81/2014/AP dated 04.08.2014; that the approved layout plan is for the entire extent of Ac.69.64 cents as a „Gated Community Project; in which, it initially contained approval of 377 HIG houses and 94 MIG houses, which includes Roads, Open spaces, Amenities, Sump and others, 5 Commercial and Convenient Shop areas. This apart, in the approved layout, there are two land pockets measuring Ac.5.00 cents and Ac.7.00 cents respectively earmarked for „A.P.H.B Future Schemes‟. Insofar as the open spaces and other amenities mentioned above are concerned, as per the Rules, 10% of the total area of layout of the entire extent of Ac.69.64 cents, totaling Ac.6.97 cents had already been earmarked as open spaces for various purposes like Schools, Amenities, Play ground and for other public purposes, which was already handed over to the Kadapa Municipal Corporation (Respondent No.4). 5(d) In the light of the above facts, the submissions made on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are two-fold. Firstly, it is stated that 10% of the entire extent of Ac.69.64 cents had already been earmarked and handed over to the Municipal Corporation and such land is still kept for the same purpose and it is under the control of Respondent No.4 Corporation. Secondly, it is stated that insofar as Ac.5.00 cents in south and Ac.7.00 cents in the West is very clearly shown in A.P.H.B layout as land meant for Future Schemes is now being developed, on which, the Writ Petitioner Association cannot lay any claim or right on one hand and cannot stop the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in developing a fresh layout on the other hand and that the Application which has been made before the Director of Town and Country Planning is now under process vide Proceeding No.1013/0003/LP/KAD/2022. It is also stated that the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are now seeking approval from the Director of Town and Country Planning only with regard to the division of plots in the open land of Ac.12.00 cents which is clearly earmarked/demarcated in the earlier approved plan as A.P.H.B land which is meant for Future Schemes. It is therefore submitted that Respondent Nos.2 & 3 have scrupulously followed all the Rules and norms which are required clearly showing as land for Future Schemes. It is stoutly stated in the Counter Affidavit of Respondent Nos.2 & 3 that the instant Writ Petition is filed with malafides and with ulterior motive, inasmuch as the President of Writ Petitioner Association, to the best of knowledge of the Office of Respondent Nos.2 & 3, is not even an allottee of a 6 house in the present Township started by Respondent No.2 and that he is a just retired employee staying in the house of a relative in the Township and he had illegally occupied and encroached a open space, which belongs to Respondent No.2 and installed idols of Goddess which were eventually removed with the help of local police and the Official Respondents herein have stalled the attempts of the President of Petitioner‟s Association to illegally grab the open space kept for future scheme. 5(e) Respondent No.4 namely the Corporation has filed the Counter Affidavit in November, 2023 along with the related documents. Documents filed along with the Counter Affidavit contains photocopy of the approved plan vide Confirmed „TLP No.1124/81/2014/A‟. This Court has perused the entire map. This Court has noticed that the open spaces meant for public purpose and public utilities have been clearly earmarked and demarcated by the Official Respondents. The details are as under: Sl.No. Earmarked for the purpose Extent 01. Reserved for public purpose (playground) Ac.3.50 cents 02. For amenities Ac.1.35 cents 03. Primary School Ac.1.52 cents 04. Open space Ac.1.79 cents 05. Open space Ac.0.88 cents 06. Open space Ac.0.57 cents 07. Open space Ac.0.14 cents 5(f) In Para No.8 of the Counter Affidavit of Respondent No.4, the said Respondent has accounted for the entire 10% of the total extent of Ac.69.64 cents. Analysis: 6. Having considered the above facts, this Court would notice that Respondent No.2 is the „Andhra Pradesh Housing Board; that the said Respondent No.2, in furtherance of its aims and objectives, had acquired Ac.69.64 cents for the purpose of development of housing colony in a systematic manner through proper layout. The Writ Petitioner Association has 7 nothing to do with the second phase of development, which the Respondent No.2 had undertaken. This apart, the approved plan (Ex.P.1) filed by the Writ Petitioner Association would clearly indicate that the open spaces in the South (Ac.5.00 cents) and in the West (Ac.7.00 cents) are clearly earmarked for the “future housing scheme”. Therefore, the buyers of the plots during the 1st phase were fully aware at the time when they were purchasing the plots that the „open spaces‟ of an extent of Ac.5.00 cents (South) and Ac.7.00 cents (West) will also be developed into house plots in the future. It is also submitted by Respondent No.2 that the Writ Petitioner Association can neither have any grievance against the Respondents for development of the fresh layout in the said open spaces nor the locus for maintaining this Writ Petition. Strangely enough, the Writ Petitioner Association did not rebut these allegations by filing a Rejoinder. 7. It is not the case of the Writ Petitioner Association that the Government has utilized the Open Spaces which are earmarked for public utilities within the layout in which the members of the Writ Petitioner Association have purchased the plots for the purposes other than for what the land is earmarked. 8. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the grievance of the Writ Petitioner Association is absolutely misconceived, inasmuch as no prejudice is caused to them as regards the new layout made by the Official Respondents in the open spaces as indicated above. This apart, this Court is also of the opinion that the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (Respondent No.2) has the absolute right to develop the Open Spaces, which are a part of the acquired land of Ac.69.64 cents as a fresh layout. Therefore, the Writ Petitioner Association has no right to interfere with the project undertaken by Respondent No.2 because the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 as well as Respondent No.4 have not breached the earlier sanctioned plan and that the present layout plan that is submitted to the Government for seeking approval for the layout was part of the space that is meant for Future Scheme. 8 9. In this view of the matter, the present Writ Petition is not only devoid of any merit but is also misconceived and an abuse of process. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No Order as to Costs. Needless to state that the Interim Order stands vacated automatically. 10. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 22.12.2025 JKS 9 58 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 22753 OF 2023 22.12.2025 JKS