IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 38982 OF 2014 Between: A.V. Adinarayana Reddy S/o. A. Narayana Reddy, Aged about 46 years, R/o. Door.No.18-296-1, Nirmalananda Nagar, Anantapur Town, Anantapur District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Hyderabad. 2. The Director of Town and Country Planning, A.P., Hyderabad 3. The Anantapur Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its. Commissioner, Anantapur, Anantapur District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3'^^ respondent in returning the petitioner's Building application through an Endorsement vide proceedings B.A.No. 70/2014/GI dated o 20.10.2614 is as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and contrary to the Provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and A.P. Building Rules, 2012 and consequently direct the 3'^^ respondent to grant building permission in respect of the petitioner's site an extent of Ac. 19.044 cents in Sy.No.175/5C1 of Nirmalananda Nagar, Anantapur Town, Anantapur District, by setting aside the endorsement made by the 3'’'^ respondent under BA.No.70/2014/G1 dated 20.10.2014 and also direct the respondents not to include the petitioner's land i.e., an extent of Ac.19.044 cents situated in Sy.No.175/5C1 of Nirmalananda Nagar, Anantapur Town, Anantapur ; District, in the proposed formation of Central park without acquiring the same under Land Acquisition Act. -i ■ I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 48839 OF 2014) Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's Land an extent of Ac. 19.044 cents in Sy.No.175/5CI situated in Nirmalananda Nagar, Anantapur Town, Anantapur District, pending writ petition in this Hon'ble Court. LA. NO: 1 OF 2015fWPMP. NO: 6142 OF 20151 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to issue building permission to the petitioner as per his building application Dt: 26-9-2014 in Sy.No. 175/5C-1 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. SITA RAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI A.S.C. BOSE, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY The Court made the following: ORDER r ■ ■ APHC010833572014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] / FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 38982/2014 Between: ...PETITIONER A.v. Adinarayana Reddy S/o. A. Narayana Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SITA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SC FOR MC RAYALSEEMA 2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 3. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following: f ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief;- ■ Jo issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in returning the petitioner's Building application through an Endorsement vide proceedings B.A.No. 70/2014/GI dated o 20.10.2014 is as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and contrary to the Provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and A.P. Building Rules, 2012 and consequently direct the . 3rd respondent to grant building permission in respect of the petitioner’s site an extent of Ac. 19.044 cents in Sy.No.175/5C1 of Nirmalananda Nagar, Anantapur Town, Anantapur District, by setting aside the endorsement made by the 3rd respondent under BA.No. 70/20l'4/G1 dated 20.10.2014 and also direct the respondents not to include the petitioner's land i.e., an extent of Ac.19.044 cents situated in Sy.No.175/5C1 of Nirmalananda Nagar, Anantapur Town, Anantapur District, in the proposed formation of Central park without acquiring the same under Land Acquisition Act and pass o such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case . " The petitioner is the absolute owner of the site to an extent of Acs.19.044 cents out of a total extent of Acs.0.51 cents in Survey No.175/5C1 which was gifted by the petitioner’s brother vide gift deed dated 29.12.2006, who in turn had purchased the same from his lawful vendor under registered sale deed dated 18.08.2001. The present writ petition is filed challenging the endorsement dated 20.10.2014 issued by the respondent which states that the proposed site falls in central park area without even considering the gift deed dated 29.12.2006 and as well as link document dated 18.08.2001 filed by the petitioner along with the building application. After receiving the impugned endorsement dated 20.10.2014, the petitioner has made an application dated 2. I 06.11.2014 to the 3'^^ respondent requesting to furnish the proposed layout plan for formation of central park in Sy.No.175/5C/1; pursuant to which, the respondent has furnished the plan of proposed formation of central Sy.No. 175/5 and the correspondence of the vendor of the park in petitioner’s brother namely Jeeviteswara Rao who is the original owner of the land in Sy.No. 175/5. I 3. Upon receipt of the same, the petitioner came to know that the vendor of petitioner’s brother was the absolute owner of the land to an extent of Acs.1.03 cents in Sy.No.175 which was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 25.07.1957. In the year 1996, the 3"'^ respondent has requested the vendor of the petitioner’s brother to surrender the land to an extent of Acs.0.14 cents out of Acs.1.03 cents for formation of Central Park in Sy.No.175/8. Accordingly, vide gift deed dated 19.06.1995, vendor of the petitioner’s brother has surrendered the land to an extent of Acs.0.14 cents as the respondent has agreed to allot equivalent site alternatively in Sy.No. 175/3. The grievance of the petitioner per the plan dated 12.11.2014 furnished by the 3 is that as respondent, it is clear that the proposal was made by the 3'" respondent corporation for exchange of petitioner's plot situated in Sy.No.175/5 for allotting equivalent alternative site in Sy.No. 175/6, but the respondents without initiating any acquisition proceedings nor obtaining consent from the petitioner for land exchange proposal, have included petitioner's site in Sy.No. 175/5 for the proposed formation of central park. Hence, the writ petition. 7 r 7 / When the writ petition came up for hearing on 31.12.2014, this Court 4. ji has passed the following interim order: “...Having regard to the fact that the impugned order nowhere indicates that the petitioner’s property is indicated in the notified master plan of Anantapur Town as a park area and merely states that the petitioner’s property falls in “central park area" without mentioning on what basis the said statement is made, there shall be interim direction as prayed for... The 3'^'^ respondent has filed a detailed counter on behalf of all the respondents herein stating that the petitioner has applied for building permission vide B.A.NO.70/2014/G1 dated 29.09.2014 for constructing building in the land to an extent of 283.48 square meters in Sy.No.175/5C-1 near Nirmalananda nagar. The said application was scrutinized as per A.P. Building rules 2012 and other town planning regulations, subsequent to which it was found that the petitioner’s site belongs to the land earmarked to the central park which was marked in the master plan published vide G.O.Ms.No.1122, MA, dated 13.10.1981. The said master plan was revised and a draft was published vide G.O.Ms.No.733 MA&UD dated 25.10.2008, wherein the proposed site of the petitioner remained under park land. As per the master plan zoning regulations vide G.O.Ms.No.690, MA, dated 02.12.2009, residences are not permitted in environmental/recreational zone, as such, endorsement dated 10.10.2014 was issued to the petitioner stating the reasons for returning the building application, which is in accordance with Section 438 of GHMC Act, 1955. It is further stated that the master plan was prepared and revised for public purpose after Government approval vide 5. G.O.Ms.No.433 MA&UD objections when the said scheme opt to do Government dated 25.10.2008; the petitioner could have filed his was put up for public opinion, but he did not SO. The Director of Town and Country Planning in response to the memo dated 05.09.1999 has iissued a tentative road pattern for central park vide letter dated 13.12.1991, wherein 3 pockets of lands were indicated as suitable for acquiring lands of central park by taking over as the reserved open spaces of layouts that are developed elsewhere in the town. The to the land to be petitioner's site also belongs reserved open space by the layout any layout owner till acquired through submission not be acquired by writ petition as the a residence in of owners, but his site could now. Hence requested to dismiss the permission to build petitioner’s claim that he central park is not permissible. has to be granted 6. Heard learned Pleader for Municipal Administration Bose, learned Standing Counsel counsel for the petitioner, and Urban Development for Municipal Administration. learned Government and Sri. A.S.C. 7. Today when the Counsel has produced Municipal Corporation, of the counter affidavit matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Assistant City Planner. 02 01.2025, wherein the a copy of instructions of the Ananthapuramu, dated contents were reiterated and specifically stated that was sanctioned and in the present survey of the central park currently, the master plan vide G.O.Ms.No.39 subject lands case, the are in central park zone and the was taken up infront of all the applicants and the surrounding land owners. Basing on the reports submitted by the town surveyor and as per the zoning regulations, the plea of the petitioner could not be considered. Hence, requested to dismiss the petition duly taking into consideration the sanctioned master plan of Ananthapuramu Municipal Corporation vide G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 06.03.2024 and the provisions of HMC Act, 1955 and APAT Act, 1920. The facts of the writ petition are not in dispute. It can be seen from the counter affidavit that the said application of the petitioner was scrutinized as per A.P. Building rules 2012 and other town planning regulations, subsequent to which it was found that the petitioner’s site belongs to the land earmarked for the central park as marked in the master plan published vide G.O.Ms.No.1122, MA, ^ dated 13.10.1981. It can also be seen that the master plan vide G.O.Ms.No.39 / was sanctioned and a survey of the central park was taken up in front of all the applicants and the surrounding land owners. Keeping in view the reports submitted by the town surveyor and as per the zoning regulations, the plea of the petitioner and others could not be considered. But, on a perusal of the impugned endorsement dated 20.10.2014, it can be seen that nowhere the O"'* respondent has specified as to which part of the petitioner’s property in Sy.No.175/5C1 is indicated in the notified master plan of Anantapur Town as a park area. 8. In view of the same, this Court feels it appropriate to remand the matter back to respondent No.3 for reconsideration of the application of the 9. petitioner as to whether the petitioner’s property in Sy.No.175/5C1 the master plan of Anantapur District as park area. is indicated in 10. Accordingly, the writ petition impugned endorsement dated 20.10.2014 by remanding respondent No. 3 to \ is allowed by setting aside the the matter back to examine as to whether the petitioner’s property in Sy.No.175/5C1 is indicated in the master plan of Anantapur District The said process shall be completed within of receipt of a copy of this Order. No as park area, a period of two months from the date costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT R^GI^RAR OFFICER * % //TRUE COPY// SECTI To, ^ Andhra'^Pr*^H Municipal Administration Department State of Andhra Pradesh. Secretariat. Velagapudi. Arnaravati.^Gumur Disirict. 2. The Director of Town and Country Planning, A.P.. Vijayawada An^nS' Anantapur, 4. One CC to Sri K. Sita Ram, Advocate [OPUC] and Urban Development, High SC for Municipality (OPUC) 5. TwoCCsto GP for Municipal Admn Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. One CC to Sri A.S.C. Bose 7. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr T HIGH COURT CNR DATED:03/01/2025 ORDER ? n MAT 202!) a X a C9 . Current uuciion ^£espatcw^® ^ WP.No.38982 of 2014 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS