1 APHC010058602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3228/2025 Between: DD Constructions Limited, ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 ORDER : This Writ Petition is 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 MANDAMUS (i) declaring the action of the 2nd respondent herein in not releasing the mortgaged plots Nos.131 to 138 and 201 to 208 (total 16 plots) in layout LP No.124/2016 issued by the 2nd Respondent herein over an extent of Ac.10-00 cent in Sy.No.100/3P, Bharanikam Village, Parawaada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 300A of the constitution of India besides contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub-division) Rules, 2017 and Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authority Act, 2016; ii) declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings in File No.RC-NO-8011/2015/L1 (Rc.No.8011/2015/L1 (e-69761) dated 27.11.2024 seeking clarification from the 3rd respondent instead of releasing the mortgaged plots Nos.131 to 138 and 201 to 208 (total 16 plots) in layout LP No.124/2016 issued by the 2nd Respondent herein over an extent of Ac.10-00 cents in Sy.No.100/3P, Bharanikam Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 300A of the constitution of India besides contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub-division) Rules, 2017 and Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authority Act, 2016 and contrary to the powers vested with the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to release the mortgaged plots Nos.131 to 138 and 201 to 208 (total 16 plots) in layout LP No.124/2016 issued by the 2nd Respondent herein over an extent of Ac.10-00 cents in Sy.No.100/3P, Bharanikam Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District…...” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner company, after obtaining permission under the provisions of the A.P. Urban Areas Development Act, 1975, formed a layout vide Layout Plan No.124/2016, with an extent of Ac.10-00 cents in Sy.No.100/3P, Bharanikam Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam 3 District. The permission was granted by the VMRDA/respondent No.2 herein. The petitioner developed the land covered by the said layout. b) A road was formed in Sy.No.314/1 and 314/3 of Bharanikam Village after resumption from the original assignees. It was a public road laid even before formation of layout by the petitioner company with the funds of MGNREGS in pursuance of the resolution No.31 dated 20.11.2008 passed by the Bharanikam Grampanchayat. Previously, it travels from Parawada to Yelamanchili by connecting Lankelapalem and now passes through the layout. The said layout was sanctioned mainly on the ground that the said road was approved. c) The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, issued proceedings on 04.02.2017, approving certain works on the road under the MNREGS scheme. The proposal for constructing a "Pucca" (cement concrete) road was approved, and the work was executed under the MNREGS. d) The Tahsildar, Parawada Mandal had issued proceedings dated 17.12.2008, addressed to the Vice Chairman, VUDA, informing the revenue department’s stand, regarding the formation of the road in Bharanikam and Parawada villages, inasmuch as a part of the said proposed road would traverse Government/assigned land in Bharanikan and Parawada revenue villagers. This communication was made much before the layout permissions for two layouts were granted to the petitioner company. 4 e) The Complaint No.62/2010/B1 was lodged before the Hon’ble Lokayukta regarding the formation of the road and a water body and the petitioner company was a party to the said complaint. In this regard, the Tahsildar, Parawada, submitted a report dated 17.10.2012 and the said complaint was subsequently closed by the Hon’ble Lokayukta. f) The above two communications, dated 17.12.2008 and 17.10.2012 issued by the Tahsildar, Parawda Mandal, show that the road was approved and permitted to be formed during the year 2008 itself, which was before the formation of the petitioner company’s layout. It is incidental that the road passes through the layout, and it is used not only by the residents of the layout but also by other citizens of Bharanikam, Parawada, and other villagers in the vicinity. The petitioner has submitted several representations requesting for release of the mortgage of plots. g) On 04.09.2024, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent after fulfilling the conditions stipulated for release of the mortgaged plots. In response to the same, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 27.11.2024, stating that they had issued a reminder letter to the District Collector seeking clarification on the version of the Tahsildar regarding the approach road and stated that the release of plots could not proceed until clarification is received from the District Collector. This delay is unwarranted, as the matter has already been addressed in the previous communication. 5 h) The grievance of the petitioner is that unless the mortgage plots are released, the petitioner will not be able to sell the same. If the plots remain mortgaged, it will cause irreparable loss and hardship. The petitioner has contended that no part of the layout was formed on government land, and the road laid in Sy.No.314/1 and 314/3 is unconnected to Layout Plan No.124/2016. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1, Mr.V.Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.3. 4. In view of the fact that the Town Planning Officer of the 2nd respondent authority has already addressed a letter to the petitioner on 27.11.2024, stating that they cannot proceed with the release of the mortgaged plots until they receive clarification from the District Collector, Anakapalli, no necessary steps have been taken to release the mortgaged plots as requested by the petitioner. As of now, no action has been initiated in pursuance of the said letter addressed by the Town Planning Officer. 5. In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the District Collector, Anakapalli/3rd respondent herein to give a clarification as requested by the 2nd respondent at an earliest point within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In pursuance of which, the 2nd 6 respondent may consider the request made by the petitioner company for release of the mortgaged plots. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 12.02.2025 KGR