APHC010078802022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 4936/2022 Between: 1. B VIJAYA SAGAR, S/O LATE B. BULLIRAJU AGED 52 YEARS, D.NO.65-9-8, MEHARNAGAR, KAKINADA-3. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP. 2. .B.VERA VENKATA SATYA VARA PRASAD BABU, S/O LATE BULLIRAJU, AGED 46 YEARS, D-NO.65-9-8, MEHARNAGAR, KAKINADA-3. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF AP, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP 2. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP 3. THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MGM CAPITAL, D.NO 241 NH-16, NEAR NRI HOSPITAL FLYOVER, CHINAKAKANI, MANGALGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522508. 4. THE REGINAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 HN, J W.P.No.4936_2022 5. RAMANAYYAPETA GRAM PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 6. RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RUDA, REP BY THE SECRETARY, 1ST FLOOR, OLD COUNCIL HALL BUILDING, RMC COMPOUND, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM-533101. 7. KAKINADA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUDA, REP BY THE SECRETARY, RR ROAD NO.3, NFSL MAIN ROAD, KAKINADA. RR 6 AND 7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.03.07.2025 IN I.A.NO.01 OF 2023 AND I.A.NO.01 OF 2025 RESPECTIVELY ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an order or a direction or a writ, more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 3 to 5, in not considering the written request dated 02-11-2019, of the petitioners, to cancel the approved layout vide L.P.No.151/1993 of the Respondents 3 to 5, vide Lr.Roc.No.MAU03-19022(31)/73/2021-RJDR dated _-11-2021 of the 3 rd Respondent (Director of Town and Country Planning, Mangalagiri) and vide Lr.Roc.No.113/2017/R1 dated 2941-2021 of the 4th Respondent (Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Rajamahendravaram) as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and Unconstitutional and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere or alter the existing physical features of the Petitioners' schedule land site in Survey Nos.216/2-2 and 216/2-3 of Ramanayyapeta Village of Kakinada Mandal, East Godavari District, in respect of the approved layout L.P.No.151/1993 of the respondents 3 to 5, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to implead Rajamahendravaram Urban Development Authority, 3 HN, J W.P.No.4936_2022 Rajamahendravaram as the 6th Respondent in Writ Petition 4936 of 2022 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to implead Kakinada Urban Development Authority, (KUDA) Kakinada as the Respondent No. 6 in thwe main writ petition and also in miscellaneous petitions and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T SREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI (SC FOR ZPP MPP AND GRAM PAN) 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 4 HN, J W.P.No.4936_2022 This Court made the following Order:- The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not considering the request of the petitioner dated 02.11.2019, seeking cancellation of the approved layout vide L.P.No.151/1993. 2. The petitioners had sought for layout permission for land admeasuring Ac.8.3 cents, and five plots were carved out in the said extent of land. L.P.No.151/1993 was approved by the respondent No.5 on 14.02.1993. 3. As required under the layout regulations, the road abutting the northern side of the petitioner’s property was mandated to be 33 feet wide. In this regard, the petitioner had left about 16.5 feet for the purpose of road and expected the northern neighbor- who applied for layout permission in the year 2004 and got sanctioned the layout permission vide L.P.No.6/2004 – to leave the remaining 16.5 feet from their end to enable the formation of a 33-feet- wide road, as mandated under the rules. 4. It is submitted that the northern neighbor of the petitioner’s plot did not leave the required setback of 16.5 feet from their end and instead constructed buildings, thereby reducing the total road width to only 16.5 feet. This has now become an impediment for the petitioners to construct any houses, given the narrow road access. 5. It is further submitted that within the available 16.5 feet of road width, the petitioners would also need to make provision for drainage, electricity, and 5 HN, J W.P.No.4936_2022 ingress and egress. It is submitted that it is practically impossible for the petitioner to utilize the narrow road and construct habitable houses. 6. In this regard, the petitioner intended to apply for a fresh layout, whereby the petitioner would be able to carve out further extent of land for the purpose of road formation, and upon such permission being granted, the property of the petitioners could be put to proper use. 7. It is submitted that the respondents have taken a plea that that there is no provision under the rules for cancellation of a layout, and as such, denied the grant of a fresh layout by cancelling the earlier one. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Rule 7(9) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub-Division) Rules, 2017, would enable the executive authorities, after consulting the competent authority, to revoke any land/layout development permission issued under the provisions of these rules, by duly giving an opportunity to the applicant. 9. It is submitted that in the present case, it is the applicant who has come forward seeking cancellation of the layout, and further submits that the competent authority can issue a fresh layout permission. It is submitted that the petitioner is willing to bear the cost for the extent of cancellation and issuance of the new layout. 6 HN, J W.P.No.4936_2022 10. Considering the submissions of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the layout permission granted vide L.P.No.6/2004 was sanctioned without the applicants leaving the 16.5 feet towards the southern side of their property, whereas the petitioners had left 16.5 feet on their northern side for road formation. 11. However, considering the submission that the owners of the northern side plots of the petitioners have constructed the buildings, it would not be prudent to disturb their construction at this belated stage. 12. However, the layout permission granted to the petitioner vide L.P.151/1993 can be revoked, and a fresh layout permission may be granted to the petitioners, subject to the petitioners submitting a fresh application seeking cancellation and reissuance of a layout. 13. The petitioners shall abide by the regulations regarding road formation for the purpose of the new layout they proposed to be applied. Upon submission of such an application, respondent Nos.4 to 7 shall duly consider the same and sanction permission for drawing a new layout for the petitioners’ extent of land. 14. At any rate, the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. 15. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 HN, J W.P.No.4936_2022 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 31.07.2025 NKA 8 HN, J W.P.No.4936_2022 269 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N Writ Petition No. 4936 of 2022 Date: 31.07.2025 NKA