Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
V Jayaram vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 31 January, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
****
WRIT PETITION No.9544 of 2023
V.Jayaram, S/o V.Rajaram Mohan, aged about
42 years, Occ: Business, R/o Door
No.25/674A, Upstairs, TTD Kalyana
mandapam, road, Srinivasa Nagar, Nandyal,
Andhra Pradesh 518501 and two others.
... Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration
& Urban Development Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Thullur
Mandal, Guntur District and four others.
... Respondents.
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 31.01.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No
_________________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Page 2 of 36
SRSJ
WP No.9544 of 2023
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
+ WRIT PETITION No.9544 of 2023
% 31.01.2024
WRIT PETITION No.9544 of 2023
V.Jayaram, S/o V.Rajaram Mohan, aged about
42 years, Occ: Business, R/o Door No.25/674A,
Upstairs, TTD Kalyana mandapam, road,
Srinivasa Nagar, Nandyal, Andhra Pradesh
518501 and two others.
... Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration &
Urban Development Department, Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Amaravati, Thullur Mandal, Guntur
District and four others.
... Respondents.
! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri C.B.Siddarth
^ Counsel for Respondent No.1 : GP for Municipal
Administration & Urban
Development
Counsel for Respondent No.3 : Sri K.Srinivasula Reddy
Counsel for Respondent No.4 : Sri N.Ranga Reddy
Counsel for Respondent No.5 : Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) 1987 SCC OnLine Kar 104
2) 1995 SCC OnLine All 641
3) W.P.No.3665 of 2023 dated 16.11.2023 of High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
This Court made the following:
Page 3 of 36
SRSJ
WP No.9544 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.9544 of 2023
V.Jayaram, S/o V.Rajaram Mohan, aged about
42 years, Occ: Business, R/o Door
No.25/674A, Upstairs, TTD Kalyana
mandapam, road, Srinivasa Nagar, Nandyal,
Andhra Pradesh 518501 and two others.
... Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration
& Urban Development Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Thullur
Mandal, Guntur District and four others.
... Respondents.
Counsel for the petitioners : Sri C.B.Siddarth
Counsel for respondent No.1 : GP for Municipal Administration &
Urban Development
Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri K.Srinivasula Reddy
Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri N.Ranga Reddy
Counsel for respondent No.5 : Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy
ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"... to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 4th respondent herein in issuing "In Principle Layout Pattern" vide IPLP No.IPLP2020/DTCP- KUDA/NDL/000018 dated 16.03.2023 in respect of Page 4 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 survey No.727/1 of Nandyal Village and Mandal, Nandyal Municipality, Nandyal District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Rules made in G.O.Ms.No.10, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M) Department, dated 08.01.2020, apart from violative of common orders dated 21.10.2022 passed by this Hon‟ble Court in W.P.Nos.7276, 7332 and 20322 of 2021, and consequently direct to cancel the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent vide IPLP No.IPLP2020/DTCP- KUDA/NDL/000018 dated 16.03.2023 ... ..."
2. a) Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioners are the absolute owners of vacant land of an extent of Ac.0-28½ cents in the southern part of S.No.727/1 of Moolasagaram Village, Nandyal Municipality, Nandyal Mandal, Nandyal District. The petitioners purchased property under three different sale deeds. The 5th Respondent, represented by its Managing Director filed an application before the 3rd respondent to construct a residential apartment in the name and style of "Sree Padmavathi Arcade" in land admeasuring 2322.9 square meters, in S.No.727/1P and 731/P in Nandyal Municipality. It seems 5th respondent applied for building permission by showing part of petitioners‟ land i.e. 12 meters as public road in S.No.727/1 and hence, 1st petitioner got issued a legal Page 5 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 notice dated 14.12.2020 to the 3rd respondent-Kurnool Urban Development Authority (KUDA) and the 4th respondent-Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality. Another representation dated 12.02.2021 was made to respondents 3 and 4. The 3rd respondent approved the building permission vide No.1017/0425/B/Nan/SN/2020 dated 25.02.2021.
b) On coming to know about building permission, another representation dated 01.03.2021 was made to respondents 2 to 4. W.P.No.7332 of 2021 was filed seeking revocation of building permission granted in favour of 5th respondent. The 2nd petitioner filed W.P.No.7276 of 2021 to direct the Director of Town & Country Planning to lay road on the triangular portion of the subject property gifted by Poola Rajasekhar to Nandyal Municipality in accordance with the Layout plan bearing T.P.No.20/1980. By common order dated 21.10.2022, the above writ petitions were disposed of and the building permission granted in favour of 5th respondent was suspended and the Court directed the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders on the basis of sketch map filed before the Court.
Page 6 of 36
SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023
c) After disposal of writ petitions, the 3rd respondent issued a draft master plan dated 03.12.2022, in which 9 meters road was proposal in S.No.727/1. Petitioners submitted objections on 21.12.2022 against draft master plan. The Draft Master Plan of Nandyal Town shows formation of roads to an extent of 12 meters minimum, except for the road that is being proposed for 9 meters near the petitioners‟ property.
d) Pursuant to orders of the Court in W.P.No.7332 of 2021 and batch, the 2nd respondent by order dated 19.01.2023 cancelled the building permission granted in favour of 5th respondent. It was observed that the approach road to the building of 5th respondent is less than 9 meters, which does not meet the minimum existing approach road width required, as per the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017 (for short "Rules 2017"). The 2nd respondent directed 4th respondent to conduct a detailed survey to identify the land gifted to Nandyal Municipality vide document No.1126 of 1979 dated 04.05.1979.
e) As per Andhra Pradesh Regularization of Unapproved Layout and Plot Rules, 2020 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.10 dated Page 7 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 08.01.2020, it was mentioned that encroachment on Government land owned by either the State or the Central Government or any PSU shall not be eligible for regularization. Pursuant to the order passed by 2nd respondent, 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 14.02.2023 to 5th respondent. The 5th respondent submitted a reply on 27.02.2023. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent by order vide Roc.No.71/BLD/KUDA/Planning/2023 dated 21.03.2023, cancelled/revoked the provisional building permission granted to 5th respondent.
f) Petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and filed a complaint as per Section 31 of RERA Act r/w 48 (1) of the A.P. RERA Rules, 2017 and the authority granted interim order against the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent filed caveat against petitioners 1 and 2. In the caveat, it was stated that 4th respondent-Commissioner of Nandyal Municipality sanctioned "In principle layout pattern" in S.No.727/1 on 16.03.2023 as per Rule 8 of G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 10.01.2020 vide IPLP No.IPLP2020/DTCP-KUDA/NDL/000018. Copy of caveat was served on 24.03.2023. The petitioners downloaded Page 8 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 IPLP from the website of DTCP. The 4th respondent has failed to intimate nor issued any notice to the petitioners before proposing IPLP. The petitioners immediately submitted objections on 29.03.2023 to respondents 3 and 4. The 3 rd respondent granted building permission to the 5th respondent on 25.02.2021 online without there being approved layout. Though the 33 feet wide proposed road was shown in L.P.No.61 of 2001, there existed only 16.5 feet wide road. The land in L.P.No.61 of 2001 is situated in S.No.727/1. The 4th respondent either on the application made by 5th respondent or suo moto cannot take up regularization of layout pattern in S.No.727/1 as it is beyond its jurisdiction. The petitioners‟ right over the property cannot be affected. Neither the plots of petitioners are in unapproved layout nor petitioners made any application seeking regularization. Hence, the writ petition.
3. a) Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit. It was contended, interalia, that pursuant to common order in W.P.No.7276 of 2021 and batch, the Director of Town & Country Planning passed orders on 19.01.2023 suspending the building plan granted in favour of 5th respondent, since Page 9 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 the proposed site is not having minimum required approached road. Pursuant to orders of DTCP, 3rd respondent cancelled/revoked the building permission issued to 5th respondent on 21.03.2023.
b) The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 08.01.2020. As per Rule 2 of said G.O., it shall be applicable to all the existing unapproved layout sub-division of plots, existing unapproved layouts or ventures promoted by land owners / private developers / firms / companies / property developers / societies, where the plot/plots with registered sale deed prior to 31.08.2019 and as per G.O.Ms.No.329 dated 27.07.2020, the last date for submission of LRS application is extended upto 31.12.2020. Thereafter the time limit was not extended.
c) Petitioners purchased plots in unauthorized sub- divided land of an extent of Ac.0.38 cents in S.No.727/1. The sub-divisions were done without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority as required under Section 82(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 (for short "Act 2016") as Page 10 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 well as Section 184 of the Act 1965. The 2nd petitioner sold out one plot to 5th respondent under a registered sale deed dated 29.08.2020, in which western side boundary is shown as road and width of road is shown as 33 feet in approval of layout vide LP No.61 of 2001.
d) As per survey report vide Lr.Roc.No.511/2022/A3, dated 18.08.2022, in 33 feet layout road, 15 feet wide CC Road was formed by the Nandyal Municipality by taking centre line of 33 feet wide and the remaining land portion is left as berm till the drain. Petitioners kept silent for utilizing their land as road. The 4th respondent as per Rule 8(b) of G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 08.01.2020, suo moto, identified the unauthorized sub-divisions took place in S.No.727/1 of Mulasagaram Revenue Village. The 4th respondent prepared in-principle layout pattern (IPLP) and forwarded the same to 2nd respondent-competent authority. The 2nd respondent, being the competent authority, empowered to accord In- Principle Layout Pattern (IPLP), approved IPLP No.2020/DTCP-KUDA/NDL/000018 dated 16.03.2023 and the same has been communicated to 4th respondent for approval/notification/finalization of in-principle layout Page 11 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 pattern (IPLP). The 4th respondent in letter dated 12.06.2023 has stated that "the approved IPLP was notified in the notice board of Nandyal Municipality on 17.03.2023 duly calling for objections from the general public within 15 days. The petitioners submitted objections, however, no reasons were mentioned.
e) The 2nd respondent received order of this Court dated 18.04.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023. The 2nd respondent approved in principle layout pattern on 16.03.2023 duly following the procedure laid down under G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 08.01.2020.
4. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit stating that 5th respondent applied for building permission for the land admeasuring 2322.9 square meters in Moolasagaram village. Building permission was automatically granted online after auto scrutiny of submitted drawings and documents. Upon site verification report of officials, stop work order was issued to 5th respondent to comply the shortfalls noticed. The 5th respondent aggrieved by the notice filed writ petition and stop work order was set aside by the Court. After passing of common order, the Director of Town and Country Planning Page 12 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 conducted hearing on 16.11.2022. The authority directed the 3rd respondent to take further action either revocation or cancellation of building permission obtained by 5th respondent. A show cause notice was issued to 5th respondent on 14.02.2023 and 5th respondent submitted explanation. After considering the explanation submitted by the developer and basing on facts the developer has misrepresented the facts. In exercise of powers under Section 87 of the Act 2016, the provisional building permission issued to 5th respondent was cancelled/revoked by the Vice Chairman of 3rd respondent on 21.03.2023, as the approach road width is less than 9 meters and in fact, 9 meters width road is mandatory to obtain building permission. Meanwhile, the 5th respondent applied for IPLP to the Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality and got IPLP vide proceeding No.IPLP 2020/DTCP-KUDA/NDL/000018 dated 16.03.2023.
5. 4th Respondent filed counter affidavit. It was contended inter alia that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 08.01.2020. Petitioners purchased plots in unauthorized sub- divided land of an extent of Ac.0.38 cents in S.No.727/1. The sub-divisions were done without obtaining permission from Page 13 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 the competent authority as required under Section 184 of the Act 1965 as well as 82 (1) of the Act 2016. 4th Respondent as per Rule 8(b) of G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 08.01.2020, suo moto, identified unauthorized sub-divisions took place in S.No.727/1 of Moolasagaram Revenue village. Keeping in view of 33 feet wide road shown in L.P.No.61 of 2001, overall connectivity and integration with existing road pattern, in principle layout pattern has been prepared and forwarded the same to 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, being the competent authority, empowered to accord in principle layout pattern as per Rule 3(3) of G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 08.01.2020, has approved IPLP and communicated to the sanctioning authority for approval, notification and finalization. The petitioners submitted objections on approval of IPLP. Since no valid objections were mentioned the petitioners objections were not considered and the same was communicated to the petitioners through endorsement vide No.324/G1/2023 dated 19.06.2023.
6. 5th Respondent filed separate counter. It was contended, interalia, that writ petitioners unauthorizedly sub- divided their Ac.0.38 cents of land into plots of 9.5 cents each Page 14 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 and the said plots are unapproved. The petitioners gifted a portion of land towards northern side for the purpose of road vide document No.1126 of 1979 dated 04.05.1979 to the 4 th respondent. Later, they sold unapproved plot of an extent of Ac.0.09½ cents to 5th respondent by way of registered sale deed dated 29.08.2020. The 5th Respondent constructed residential apartment by gifting land to the Municipality. The petitioners, having gifted the land towards the North for the purpose of road to 4th respondent, started litigation. Petitioners deposed falsely regarding approval of their plots and eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Reply affidavit was filed by the petitioners for the counter filed by 4th respondent.
8. Heard Sri C.B.Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri C.B.Siddarth, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development for respondents 1 & 2; Sri K.Srinivasula Reddy, learned standing counsel for 3rd respondent; Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned standing counsel for 4th respondent Page 15 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 and Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for 5th respondent.
9. Learned senior counsel for petitioners, while reiterating the averments in the affidavit would submit that without issuing notice IPLP was approved. He would also submit that the 4th respondent did not consider the objections filed by the petitioners. He would submit that to benefit 5th respondent, 4th respondent acted without jurisdiction and exercised, suo moto, jurisdiction by recommending IPLP on 09.02.2023. He would also submit that the cut-off date for regularization of In Principle Layout Pattern with regard to plot with registered sale deed is prior to 31.08.2019.
10. Sri Sivaji, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development would submit that as per G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 08.01.2020, the last date for submission of LRS application is extended upto 31.12.2020 and thereafter, time was not extended. He would submit that case at hand, 4th respondent recommended IPLP on 09.02.2023 after cut-off date i.e. 31.12.2020. Page 16 of 36
SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023
11. Learned counsel for 4th respondent would submit that the authority exercised, suo moto, jurisdiction under Rule 8 and recommended for IPLP. The competent authority accorded sanction and later, the 4th respondent called for objections. He would submit that petitioners submitted objections and the same were considered.
12. Learned counsel for 5th respondent would submit that petitioners approached the Court by suppressing material and relevant facts. He would submit that statement made by petitioners on oath in Paragraph 12 (d) of the affidavit, disentitles the petitioners to get the reliefs and eventually, prayed the Court to dismiss the writ petition. He also would submit that time to issue In Principle layout pattern is extended from time to time and in is in force on that the when the authority submitted the same and approval of the same by the 2nd respondent.
13. Now the points for consideration are:
1) Whether the recommendation made by 4th respondent for grant of in principle layout patter (IPLP) in respect of land in S.No.727/1 Page 17 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 of Moolasagaram village is in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 08.01.2020?
2) Whether the Commissioner of 4th respondent while submitting application and 2nd respondent while approving the application followed the procedure qua In Principle Layout Patter (IPLP)? If not, IPLP No.IPLP2020/DTCP-KUDA/NDL/000018 dated 16.03.2023 in respect of S.No.727/1 is liable to be set aside?
3) Whether the IPLP No.IPLP2020/DTCP-
KUDA/NDL/000018 dated 16.03.2023 in
respect of S.No.727/1 is in violation of
principles of natural justice?
14. As seen from the facts narrated above, there is no dispute that petitioners possessed an extent of Ac.0.38 cents in S.No.727/1 of Moolasagaram village. It is also undisputed fact that that 2nd petitioner alienated Ac.0.09½ cents to 5th respondent under a registered sale deed dated 29.08.2020.
The 5th respondent obtained building permission for construction of residential apartment. Assailing the same, 1st petitioner filed W.P.No.7332 of 2021 and 2nd petitioner filed W.P.No.7276 of 2021 to direct the Director of Town and Page 18 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 Country Planning to lay road on the portion of subject property gifted by petitioners to Nandyal Municipality in accordance with Layout Plan bearing TP No.20 of 1980. The 5th respondent filed W.P.No.20322 of 2021 to declare the stop work order dated 28.08.2021 and the show cause notice dated 28.08.2021 issued by Kurnool Urban Development Authority, as illegal and arbitrary. All the 3 writ petitions were disposed of by a common order. While disposing all the writ petitions, the High Court observed that the approach road to the land of the developer is not 40 feet or 33 feet wide throughout its length. However, the stop work order dated 28.08.2021 issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) was set aside and the DTCP is directed to give opportunity to petitioners as well as 5th respondent and pass orders afresh. The building permission granted to the 5th respondent was suspended till a decision is taken.
15. Pursuant to the common order, 3rd respondent issued a draft Master Plan dated 03.12.2022 and 9 meters road was proposed in S.No.727/1. The petitioners raised objections on 21.12.2022. The 2nd respondent, after hearing petitioners and 5th respondent, by order dated 19.01.2023 cancelled the Page 19 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 building permission granted in favour of 5th respondent. In the said proceedings, it was observed that the approach road to the building of 5th respondent is less than 9 meters, which does not meet the minimum existing approach road width required as per the Rules 2017. In fact, it was observed that the 5th respondent misled the authority and obtained building permission. The 2nd respondent further directed the 4th respondent to conduct enquiry and to identify the land gifted to Nandyal Municipality vide document dated 04.05.1997. The 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 14.02.2023 to 5th respondent qua building permission. 5th respondent submitted explanation on 27.02.2023 and thereafter 3rd respondent cancelled/revoked the building permission granted in favour of 5th respondent.
16. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.10, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M) Department, dated 08.01.2020 formulating the Andhra Pradesh Regularisation of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2020 (for short "Rules 2020"), in exercise of powers conferred under Section 44-A of the Andhra Pradesh Town Planning Act, 1920, Section 585 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, Section 326 of the Page 20 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act 1965, Section 18 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 and Section 116 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016.
17. Rule 2 (e) of Rules 2020 is applicable to Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, Nagar Panchayats. Rule 3 (3) defines „Competent Authority‟. The Competent Authority is the authority who is empowered to accord In-Principle approval of Layout Pattern. Rule 3(3)(g) would apply to the facts of the case at hand.
18. As per Rule 3(3)(g), the Director of Town & Country Planning is the authority who is empowered to accord In- principle approval of Layout pattern or his delegated Officer. Rule 3(3)(4) speaks about "Sanctioning Authority". The Sanctioning Authority is the authority authorized to implement the layout pattern approved by the Competent Authority and regularize the individual plots duly following the layout pattern approved by the Competent Authority.
19. The Sanctioning Authority as per Rule 3(4)(e), the Commissioner in case of areas falling in Municipal Page 21 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 Corporations, Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats. Rule 3(5) deals with layout pattern, which means layout plan approved by the competent authority with or without changes, to the layout plan submitted by the layout promoter/Society/Association or the layout prepared, suo moto, by the sanctioning authority and approved by the Competent Authority for the purpose of improving the layout in the interest of planned development. As per Rule 4 of the Rules 2020, cut-off date for considering regularization of unapproved layouts, only those unapproved layouts and sub- division of plots with registered sale deed/title deed, as a plot, prior to 31.08.2019 shall be considered for regularization under these rules.
20. As per Rule 7 of the Rules 2020, the Competent Authority, shall take into consideration the norms mentioned therein for regularization.
21. It is apt to extract Rule 8 of the Rules 2020, which reads thus:
8. Scrutiny by the Competent Authority:
(1) For Regularisation of Unauthorised Layout Pattern:Page 22 of 36
SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 The regularisation of layout patterns can be done by the Competent Authority in two cases.
(a) On receipt of application from the layout owner / Society / Association in which some of the plots were already sold.
(b) Layouts identified and prepared suo-moto by Sanctioning Authority.
(c) After receipt of applications from the layout owner/society/Association through sanctioning authority the concerned Competent Authority shall scrutinize applications with respect to the following parameters:
(i) The sanctioning Authority has to prepare layout plans as existing on ground or collect from different sources along with the copy of layout plan, name of the revenue village, survey numbers or ward numbers, town survey numbers, and its extent along with specific recommendations to the concerned Competent Authority within Thirty (30) days from the date of notification of these rules for in-principle approval of layout pattern.
(ii) Upon receipt of application specified in rule 8(1)(a) and (b), the details of unapproved layouts, the Competent Authority shall accord in-principle approval for layout pattern and communicate to the sanctioning authority within Fifteen (15) days who shall immediately notify all such layouts duly inviting objections and suggestions on the layout pattern by giving a time period of Fifteen (15) days.
(iii) After the time period, all the objections and suggestions received, if any, shall be examined and shall finalise the layout pattern. If any changes are proposed to the in-principle layout pattern, the sanctioning authority shall consult Competent Authority to confirm the same. The scrutiny of the single plot regularisation shall be done accordingly.
(iv) Regularisation of unapproved layout framework will not automatically regularise the individual plot in the layout. The individual plot owner/promoter (in the Page 23 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 case of unsold plots) shall apply for regularisation of his/her plot/plots separately.
(v) In case of applications which are found to be not in accordance with these rules, orders shall be issued for rejection.
(vi) The Sanctioning Authority shall forward the copy of the in-principle approved layout framework to the registration department for entering the details of the open spaces and roads in the prohibitory property watch register.
(vii) Mere submission of application will not imply the approval of the application.
(2) Regularisation of Individual Plots:
(a) The individual plot in a layout shall be scrutinized with reference to the in principle approved layout pattern.
(b) The scrutiny of application and communication of its approval or rejection shall be intimated to the applicant as early as possible but not beyond Six (6) months from the last date of receipt of applications.
22. Rule 8 as extract supra, would prescribe the procedure of scrutiny by the competent authority. Rule 8 (1) speaks that regularization of layout patterns can be done by the Competent Authority in two phases (a) On receipt of application from the layout owner / Society / Association in which some of the plots are already sold and (b) suo-moto by Sanctioning Authority. Rule 8 (1)(c) prescribed the procedure for scrutiny of applications by the competent authority. Rule 8(1)(c)(i) authorizes sanctioning authority to prepare layout Page 24 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 plans as existing on ground or collect from different sources along with the copy of layout plan etc. and to send the same to the Competent Authority within Thirty (30) days from the date of notification for in-principle approval of layout pattern. After receipt of application specified in rule 8(1)(a) and (b), the Competent Authority shall accord in-principle approval for layout pattern and communicate to the sanctioning authority within Fifteen (15) days who, in turn, shall immediately notify all such layouts duly inviting objections and suggestions on the layout pattern by giving a time period of Fifteen (15) days.
23. Thus, either the layout owner/society/association may apply, or the Sanctioning authority identify and prepare lay out suo moto. The sanctioning authority, on receipt of the applications scrutinizes keeping in view certain parameters delineated. In the case of owner/society/association, since the person interested is making application no dispute arises.
24. Conversely, where the Sanctioning authority exercises suo-moto jurisdiction, the authority shall put the owner with prior notice even before submitting the application to the competent authority. When such suo-moto jurisdiction is Page 25 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 conferred on the authority, the authority shall exercise the jurisdiction cautiously and by observing principles of natural justice. The authority is dealing with lay out i.e. property of another person and in such a case, the authority shall observe principles of natural justice. Though it was not specifically mentioned about observance of principles of natural justice, i.e. issuance of notice at the first instance in the Rules, one should read into principles of natural justice into the Rules.
25. In Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. Kantha Chandra1, the Karnataka High Court held thus:
"If the grant of permission is likely to lead to invasion of the rights of the third parties or at any rate it is going to provide a basis for infringing those rights, the statutory authority empowered to grant such permission should not exercise its power and grant permission. When the Act requires the authority to exercise power keeping in view the interests of the general public and not to grant permission if such permission is likely to cause public nuisance, it must bestow its thought, over the consequences that may ensue as a result of granting permission, in the light of the statutory requirements, and take care to see that if the consequences of its' act i.e., grant of permission is likely to lead to undesirable situation or likely to become a basis for causing injury to 1 1987 SCC OnLine Kar 104 Page 26 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 third persons and the interests of general public are going to suffer and it is going to cause nuisance to public, it should not grant permission in such a case. The power conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95(2), (3) and (4) of the Act has to be exercised judicially. It is not an administrative power. It has to be exercised not only with reference to the rights and interests of the applicant seeking permission, but also with reference to the interests of general public which includes the interest of third parties and at the same time it must also be kept in view that grant of permission does not cause nuisance to public. Of course, it does not require to be stated that the interests of general public and avoidance of nuisance to public will always prevail over the rights and interests of the applicant."
26. The principles of natural justice are considered to be inherent and must be read into every statute, even if not specifically provided for. The applicability of these principles is not dependent on any statutory provision and must be mandatorily applied. The natural justice may be excluded by a statutory provision, but where a statute is silent or the provision can be read consistently with the principles of natural justice, the court should do so on the presumption that the legislature intended the statutory authority to act in accordance with natural justice. The requirement of compliance with the principles of natural justice depends on the facts and circumstances, nature of statutes, object, purpose, and other relevant factors. Not every provision that Page 27 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 excludes these principles can be considered per se arbitrary. In certain cases, the compliance of principles of natural justice may not be necessary. However, in the absence of an express provision, the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.
27. In Gita Sahitya Kutir Inter College Vs. The Dy. Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and another2, the Allahabad High Court has held that even though the said section of the Act does not talk about giving an opportunity of hearing, in view of catena of decisions of the Apex Court interpreting principles of natural justice it has to be held that before taking resort to this provision, giving an opportunity of a hearing to the effected party is must and non- affording will render the order violative of principles of natural justice.
28. This Court considered the said aspect in Modugala Venugopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh3. 2 1995 SCC Online All 641 3 W.P.No.3665 of 2023 dated 16.11.2023 Page 28 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023
29. The Government issued G.O.Rt.No.329, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M) Department dated 27.07.2020 extending the time for submission of application under the scheme till 31.12.2020. Thereafter, the Special Chief Secretary to Government issued memos extending time to dispose of pending application. The subject mentioned in the memo reads as follows:
"Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department - The Andhra Pradesh Regularisation of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2020 - Preparation & Approval of in Principle Layout pattern for all eligible unauthorized Layouts and disposal of pending applications filed under LRS before 31.01.2023 - Instructions - Issued."
In Paragraph-3 of the Memo No.1426943/M2/2021, dated 17.06.2021, it was mentioned as follows:
"3. In the circumstances reported by the Director of Town & Country Planning, AP, the Government hereby instruct the concerned Metropolitan Commissioners/Vice Chairperson of Development Authorities and Municipal Commissioners of Urban Local Bodies to prepare and approve in-principle layout patterns for all the eligible unauthorized layouts identified under UCIMS, in various ULBs/Development Authorities. Also, the pending applications filed under the LRS, 2020 issued vide G.O. 1st cited shall be disposed before 31.07.2021."
30. In Memo dated 11.08.2021, the subject remains the same, except date. In Paragraph-3 of the Memo, it was mentioned as follows:
Page 29 of 36
SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 "3. In the circumstances reported by the Director of Town & Country Planning, AP, the Government hereby extend the time limit till 30.09.2021 for disposal of all pending applications filed under the LRS, 2020 issued vide G.O. 1st cited shall."
31. In Memo dated 03.11.2021, the subject remains the same, except date. It was further stated that Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) shall be adhered for speedy disposal of applications filed under LRS, 2020. In Memo dated 31.03.2022, the subject remains the same, except the date, qua disposal of pending applications. In Paragraph-3, it was mentioned as follows:
"3. In the circumstances reported by the Director of Town & Country Planning, AP and after careful examination of the matter, the Government hereby extend the time limit till 30.06.2022 for disposal of all pending applications filed under the LRS, 2020 issued vide G.O. 1st cited shall."
32. Likewise, the Government issued Memos dated 10.08.2022, 14.11.2022, 10.03.2023 and 04.08.2023. In the Memo dated 04.08.2023, the subject mentioned is as follows:
"MA&UD Department - The Andhra Pradesh Regularisation of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2020 - Extension of time limit for disposal of pending applications filed under LRS Scheme for further three (3) months - Orders - Issued - Reg."
In the Memo dated 04.08.2023, it was states as follows:
"In the circumstances reported by the Director of Town & Country Planning, AP, Mangalagiri, Guntur in the Page 30 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 reference 16th cited and after careful examination of the matter, the Government hereby extend the prescribed time limit for further three (3) months from the date of approval of the Government, for disposal of all pending applications filed under the Layout Regularization Scheme, 2020 formulated vide G.O. 1st cited."
33. Thus, as seen from the memos, time was extended to dispose of pending applications only. No mention was made that time is extended even for submission of applications. After the G.O. came into operation by issuing G.O.Rt.No.329 dated 27.07.2020, time was extended to submit application to avail the benefit of the scheme till 31.12.2020. In fact, in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, it was stated that time is extended upto 31.12.2020. Thus, it is clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that one must make an application before 31.12.2020.
34. Case at hand, it is undisputed fact that the Commissioner of 4th respondent, after disposal of writ petitions on 21.10.2022, suo moto, exercised jurisdiction and recommended IPLP on 13.07.2023. No notice was issued to the petitioners before making such a recommendation. Though, the Commissioner got jurisdiction under the Rules, exercising of such jurisdiction and the time when it was exercised gains significance.
Page 31 of 36
SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023
35. The workflow sheet obtained from 2nd respondent (DTCP) under RTI Act was filed by the petitioners along with reply affidavit in W.P.No.12320 of 2023, where the petitioners challenged the grant of building permission in favour of 5th respondent. As seen from the workflow sheet, A.Sekhar/WPRS, forwarded remarks and recommended date was mentioned as 09.02.2023 01:59:55 PM. In the remarks column, it was mentioned as follows:
"It is submitted that an extent of 38 cents was sub divided into 4 equal parts that is 9.5 cents per each parts against the act provision under section 184 of APM Act 1965, duly mentioning in wrong boundaries i.e. on western side already layout was established but the same was not reflected in the documents executed in the years 2007 and 2010 it is also observed only the sell deed executed wide document no:7181/2020 date 29.08.2020 in favour of M/s.NJR constructions, the western schedule is mentioned as road and remaining documents executed wide 7196/2007 in favor of Sri.V.Rajarammohan & documents executed vide 4361/2010 in favour of Smt.V.Vidyavathi w/o V.Rajaram, the western schedule is mentioned as Chinnanannavagariala bhoomi even after approval of layout wide lp No.61/2001 without mentioning the said schedule as road. Hence it is submitted the prepared IPLP for favour of approval."
36. It is pertinent to mention here that, within the time prescribed, as per G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 08.01.2020 to submit applications seeking regularization, the petitioners for the reasons best known did not choose to make such an Page 32 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 application. It is also an undisputed fact, as per the material on record, that the plots of petitioners are in an unapproved layout. However, after expiry of time stipulated, the Commissioner of 4th respondent, suo moto, prepared IPLP for approval and submitted it to the competent authority. It seems the competent authority approved IPLP on 16/17.03.2023. Thus, such a recommendation made by the Commissioner of the 4th respondent suffers from violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
37. The letter addressed by the Commissioner of 4th respondent to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Guntur vide Lr.ROC.No.805/2020/G1, dated 12.03.2023 filed along with counter affidavit of 1st respondent, would manifest that the learned Commissioner as per Rule 8(1)(i) prepared IPLP and forwarded to the Competent Authority for approval and the same was approved by the authority on 16.03.2023 and by the sanctioning authority on 17.03.2023; that the IPLP was notified as per Rule 8(1)(ii) in the notice board of office on 17.03.2023 calling for objections from the general public within 15 days; that the petitioners submitted objections, but no reasons were mentioned as stipulated in Page 33 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 Rule 6 (1) to (19) in G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 08.01.2020 and hence, the petitioners‟ objections were not considered.
38. Thus, it is clear that learned Commissioner exercised, suo-moto, jurisdiction beyond the time stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.10, extended in G.O.Rt.No.329 dated 27.07.2020 recommending for in-principle layout pattern and the same is not permissible and in fact it is in violation of principles of natural justice as observed supra. It is not out of place to mention here that the Commissioner of 4th respondent is aware of the plots of the petitioners in earlier round of litigation and the order passed by this Court.
39. The argument of learned counsel for 5th respondent that the „subject‟ mentioned in the Memos would include receiving of application, falls to ground for the reason that the operative portion of memo, it does not include receiving of application. The memos, extracted supra, would disclose that time is being extended from time to time beyond 31.12.2020 is only to dispose of pending applications. It is not the case of the Commissioner of the 4th respondent or 2nd respondent that the recommendation was within the time prescribed. Page 34 of 36
SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 Both authorities pleaded Sec 184 of A.P.Municipalities Act 1965. A careful perusal of section 184 of A.P.M.C.Act, it would manifest that it is the owners obligation to make a lay out and to from street or road when disposing of the land as building sites. If the owner failed to comply with the conditions specified, the owner shall not be entitled to utilize, sell, lease or otherwise dispose of his land or any portion thereof for the construction of the building. Thus, if the petitioners failed to make the land regularized, the consequences will follow. However, exercising suo-moto jurisdiction by the Commissioner of 4th respondent, after disposal of the writ petition and the subsequent building permission in favour of 5th respondent based upon the width of the road shown in IPLP would manifest that the authorities misused the powers vested with them.
40. Rule 8(1)(b) of the Rules authorized preparation of lay- out by the sanctioning authority suo-moto. The Commissioner of the 4th respondent should have exercised suo-moto jurisdiction within a reasonable time or the time stipulated in G.O. As discussed supra, the Sanctioning authority i.e. the Commissioner of 4th respondent recommended IPLP on 16-3- Page 35 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 2023 beyond the time stipulated and even after extension is expired. Even the Commssioner of 4th respondent failed to consider the objections of petitioners objectively. A perusal of the rejection would manifest the same. In the considered opinion of this court, the exercise of suo moto jurisdiction by the Commissioner of 4th respondent is tainted with illegality, violative of principles of natural justice and also colorable exercise of power and hence the IPLP is liable to be set aside.
41. In fact, in the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of 4th respondent, the deponent did not even mention the date of recommendation of in-principle layout pattern. The Commissioner of 4th respondent should have mentioned the date, in all fairness, in the counter affidavit. As discussed supra along with reply in the connected writ petition the proceedings were filed.
42. The argument of learned counsel for 5th respondent that the petitioners approached the Court with unclean hands, this Court is not going into that aspect, in view of the conclusion of this court that the Commissioner exercised „suo moto‟ jurisdiction beyond the time stipulated and in fact such Page 36 of 36 SRSJ WP No.9544 of 2023 exercise is tainted with illegality, violative of principles of natural justice and colorable exercise of power.
43. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the IPLP No.IPLP2020/DTCP-KUDA/NDL/000018 dated 16.03.2023 in respect of survey No.727/1 of Nandyal Village and Mandal, Nandyal Municipality, Nandyal District with costs of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) payable by the Commissioner of 4th respondent, personally, to the State legal services authority within a period of four weeks from today. If the Commissioner of 4th respondent fails to deposit costs, the authority can recover the same by following the procedure.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI 31st January, 2024 Note: LR Copy to be marked B/O PVD6