THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.12572 of 2021
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in keeping the application of the petitioners for approval of layout plan in abeyance by virtue of orders in Rc.No.9890/2015/L5 Dt.21/05/2018 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and to direct the 2nd respondent to process and release the layout plan submitted by the petitioners under application No.2015-LA 0065962702 dated 18.11.2015.
2. Heard Sri V.V.Satish, learned Counsel for the petitioners and of Sri V.Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for R2 and Sri P.Veera Reddy, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of learned Counsel Sodum Anvesha, for proposed parties/respondents.
3. As per the averments in the affidavit, the impugned orders dated 21.5.2018, that the lay out permission submitted by the petitioners of an extent of Ac.10.18cents in Sy.No.28/2, Kommadi Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District is kept in abeyance for the reasons that complaints received from one G.Krishna Rao with the supporting copies of documents and also interim orders of the Hon’ble High Court dated 13.12.2016 issued in W.P.MP.No.51669 of 2016 in W.P.No.41915 of 2016 granting of status-quo in favour of the petitioners therein i.e. G.Srinivasa Rao, B.Srinivasa Rao and K.Padma of the land to an extent of Ac.3.90cents in Sy.No.28/2 of Kommadi (V), Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal.
DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021
4. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of the land in an extent of Ac.10.18cents in Sy.No.28/2, Kommadi village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. They have purchased the said land under registered sale deed dated 17.9.2012. Originally the said land was assigned infavour Dakavarapu Ramulu, S/o Kannayya under freedom fighter/political sufferer category vide patta No.346/87. After demise of original owner, the property had been developed upon the legal heirs of pattadar. Initially the subject property is included in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.
Questioning the said action one Dakavarapu Sankara Rao who is the owner of the original assignee filed application seeking NOC from the District Collector on 15.02.2012. After getting the report from the concerned i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer, and the Tahsildar concerned of Visakhapatnam and after thorough enquiry, the District Collector has issued orders deleting the subject land from the list of 22-A of Registration Act vide proceedings dated 28.8.2012. Said orders became final. Subsequently after obtaining NOC from the concerned District Collector, the said lands were registered in favour of the petitioners.
5. The petitioners after verifying all the connected records and proceedings of the revenue officers and District Collector, they have purchased the said lands by investing huge amount. After purchase, the petitioners intend to convert land into residential plots by making a lay out. Accordingly, they have made an application for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose by paying Rs.61,08,000/- to the competent authority i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam. After making an enquiry, the concerned DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021 authority i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam has issued orders in R.Dis No.13045/2015/SDT(LR)/dt.19.10.2015. Subsequent to conversion of the land as agriculture to non-agriculture, the petitioners have made an application on 18.11.2015 to the erstwhile Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (hereinafter refer to as VUDA) for approval of lay out filed an application no.2015-LA 0065962702.
After receipt of the application made by the petitioners, VUDA has insisted to get the clarification again from the District Collector with regard to the status of the land. On the application made by the petitioners, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam issued proceedings dated 09.01.2015 confirming the fact that the land was assigned to Dakavarapu Ramulu under the category of freedom fighter and also stated that they have deleted the land from the prohibitory list under section 22-A of the Registration Act. The same was also submitted to VUDA. Again the VUDA has raised an objection that the land was not in residential zone. The same was under recreation zone as per the master plan and accordingly, to get the classification of land usage in the master plan for processing the lay out.
Accordingly, the GVMC has processed the application for change of classification of the land from recreation to residential zone. Initially, the Government who is the competent to change the classification of zone issued approved notification amending the master plan in respect of the property of the petitioners by calling objections from the public. For non- receiving the objections, with regard to change of classification, the Government has passed through G.O.Ms.No.236 MAUD Department dated 05.10.2016 changing the land usage to residential.
As directed by the Government, the petitioners have also paid an amount of DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021 Rs.52,07,540/- towards fee for land conversion. After that the VUDA has processed the application made by the petitioners for grant of permission and also directed the petitioners to mortgage 15% of the plotted area of lay out land by way of a registered deed of mortgage and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.14,37,495/- towards balance development charges. Accordingly, the petitioners have paid an amount of Rs.14,37,495/- and mortgaged 15% plotted area through document no.305/2017 on 27.01.2017 and produced indemnity bond.
Despite compliance made by the petitioner, the VUDA has not processed and released the approved lay out plan. Questioning the inaction, the petitioners have filed the writ petition no.9768 of 2018 and at the admission stage the same was disposed of with a direction to VUDA to consider the petitioners application for grant of lay out within a period of four (04) weeks vide orders dated 23.3.2018.
Pursuant to the above said directions of the High Court, the VUDA has passed the impugned orders on 21.5.2018 stating that the application for approval is kept in abeyance. Though the said orders were passed on 21.5.2018 but the same were not communicated to the petitioners till recent past. After efforts made by the petitioners, he could be able to secure the orders. Hence the present writ petition.
6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to the provisions of the Act. 2nd respondent has no authority to keep the application pending or keep the application under abeyance as per the provisions of the Act, the authorities can only grant permission for lay out or can reject the same. But there is no provision for keeping the application pending for long time. Apart from that though DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021 compliance is made by the petitioners, the authorities cannot keep the application pending or abeyance for irrelevant reasons.
Further in the impugned orders the authorities have mentioned about the writ petition no.41915 of 2016 for a extent of Ac.7.08cents in Sy.No.28/2 & 28/3 of Kommadi (V) seeking direction not to include their lands in the land pooling scheme. Though, initially the interim direction of status-quo is granted but subsequently, the same was disposed of directing not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law.
The interim orders were merged with the final orders dated 03.7.2018. Hence there are no directions against the respondents for keeping the application under abeyance. As far as the other writ petitions are concerned filed by one G.Padma for the following prayer:
W.P.No.11248 of 2016:
…to issue a writ or direction or order or direction particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned sale proceedings D Dis No.470/2012/E1 dt.28.8.2012 of the 1st respondent as well as Gazette Notification No.29/2016 dt.29.01.2016 Rc.No.3795/2007/D1 dt.29.01.2016 issued by the 1st respondent in so far as Sl.No.65 in Category III showing the lands of the petitioner erroneously allotted and set aside the same as contrary to law violative of the principles of natural justice contrary to Articles 14 16 21 of the Constitution of India official bias mala fide and non application of mind in the interest of justice and consequently direct the respondents to delete the wrong entries in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac.3.90cents in Sy.No.28/2 and Ac.3.18cents in Sy.No.28/3 of Kommadi village, Visakhapatnam by incorporating the name of the petitioner in the interest of justice.
W.P.No.26875 of 2009:
…issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent herein in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 18.11.2009 with reference to the deletion of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.3.90cents in Sy.No.28/2 of Kommadi villge Maduravada registration Sub District Visakhapatnam rural Mandal from the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.581 Revenue Registration dated 4 5 2005 published in the AP Gazette parti extraordinary no.360 dated 31 5 2005 as illegal arbitrary and further direct the 1st respondent herein to consider the said representation forthwith and delete the said entry from the aforesaid notification.
DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021 The said writ petitions are nothing to do with the present subject matter. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the bonafide purchasers and after verification of the revenue records and subsequent to purchase, they have made an application for lay out permission as per the provisions of the Act, and accordingly, they got the land converted from agriculture to commercial use by paying huge amount to the State and also as per the objections raised by VUDA, they have made an application for change/conversion of zone from recreation to residential by paying nearly sixty lakhs. After producing relevant documents requested by the VUDA, finally, the application was processed as per the provisions of the Act and directed the petitioners to pay the amounts of Rs.14,37,495/- and also to register the mortgage deed of 15% plotted area. The petitioners have complied the other requirements/directions through document no.305/2017 dated 27.01.2017.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the other grounds which are raised are that the subject properties are included in the Special Investigation Team (for short SIT) for enquiry. Hence they could not be able to process the application is totally non-application of mind. Even according to the impugned orders they have stated that as per the articles published in the newspaper they came to know about the exclusion of these lands in the SIT for enquiry.
No doubt that SIT is not a statutory authority to exercise any powers under the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to be as Act, 2016) and hence the SIT has no role to play for compliance of the provisions of the Act 2016 and accordingly, the stand taken by the respondents is not at all supported by the DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021 provisions of the Act for grant of lay out permission to the petitioners.
8. To support his contention, the petitioner has relied on Section 84 (1)(2)(4), Section 114(1)(2)(3) and Section 142 (a)(b) of the Act, 2016.
84. Application for development permission –
(1) Any person or body intending to carry out any development of land for the purpose of layout or for sub-division into plots or for construction, reconstruction, addition or alteration of any building shall apply in writing to the Metropolitan Commissioner / Vice-Chairperson for Development Permission in such form and containing such particulars and accompanied by such plans, documents, ownership documents for the land or plot and on payment of fees and charges as prescribed under the Act in addition to statutory provisions made under the respective Acts of the Local Authorities; (2) On receipt of the application for Development Permission under sub-section (1), the Metropolitan Commissioner / Vice-Chairperson, after making such enquiry as consider it necessary in relation to any matter concerning the Perspective Plan or Master Plan or Infrastructure Development Plan or Area Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan or Development Scheme, Layout Regulations, Development Promotion Regulations, aesthetics, architectural and urban design control briefs, landscaping stipulations or in relation to any other matter, may issue a Development Permission Order either:-
(a) granting permission unconditionally or
(b) granting permission subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary or
(c) refuse permission citing the grounds of such refusal which shall be recorded in writing in the order.
(4) If within sixty days after the receipt of such application made under this section for Development Permission for layout or such similar land development scheme or construction of building or of any information or further information required, the Metropolitan Commissioner/Vice-Chairperson has neither granted or refused permission, such permission shall be deemed to have been granted and the applicant after intimating the Metropolitan Commissioner / Vice-Chairperson in writing, may proceed to carry out the development but not so as to contravene any of the provisions of the Act or plans or schemes or any rules or regulations made under the Act.
114. Effect of other laws –
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Andhra Pradesh Town Planning Act, 1920 (Act.No.7 of 1920) or the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, (Act. No. 6 0f 1965) or the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (Act.No.1 of 1975) or Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Act, 1979 (Act. No. 19 of 1979) or Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Act, DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021 1981 (Act. No. 23 of 1981) or Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994; (Act. No. 25 of 1994) the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Act. No. 13 of 1994) or any other law, the provisions of the Act shall have an over-riding effect over all such laws.
(2) Any development permission, No Objection Certificate or other clearance given under the Act shall be construed as from the planned development point of view and shall in no way either confer the ownership rights or affect the ownership under the land revenue laws. The Authority shall stand absolved of any ownership disputes or discrepancies.
(3) Once development permission is given, the right to develop the land in that way can be exercised by anyone acquiring and occupying the land. It is not restricted to the person making the application unless a specific condition is incorporated in the grant of the Development Permission.
142. Repealing of Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (Act No 1 of 1975) and savings –
(a) After dissolution of the former Authority under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (Act 1 of 1975) and after constitution of the new Authority under the provisions of this Act, the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (Act 1 of 1975) stands repealed.
(b) Anything done or any action taken (including any appointment, delegation, notification, order, scheme, permission, rule, byelaw, regulation or form made or granted or issued) under any provision of the aforesaid Act, shall so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue in force and be deemed to have been done or taken under the provisions of this Act unless and until it is superseded by anything done or any action taken under the said provisions.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that after submitting all the relevant documents, the authorities cannot withhold the lay out permission. Infact as per section 114 of the Act 2016, this Act has overriding effect over all such laws. According to the provisions of the Act, once the development permission is given right to develop the land in that way can be exercised by any one acquiring and occupying the land.
It is not restricted to the person making the application unless a specific condition is incorporated in the grant of the development permission. When a permission for development in respect of any land or building or institution of use or change of use of any land or building has been obtained under the DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021 Act, such development shall not be deemed to be unlawfully undertaken or carried out by reasons only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction required under such other law for such development has not been obtained. As per section 114(2) of the Act 2016, the authorities shall stand absolved of any ownership disputes or discrepancies.
10. Learned Counsel further submitted that the respondents have no authority under Section 84 (1) & (2) of the Act. According to sub- section 2 of section 84 of the Act has clarifies that the authorities can grant permission unconditionally and grant permission subject to certain conditions or refuse permission citing the grounds for such refusal.
There is a time limit prescribed under sub-section 4 of section 84 of the Act 2016 that within 60 days after receipt of such application made under the provisions of the Act has neither granted nor refused such permission shall be deemed to have been granted. In view of the sub-section 4 of Section 84 of the Act 2016, that if the authorities has not disposed of the application made for lay out permission, if such application has not disposed of, one should have construed that it is a deemed permission.
But in the instant case, the authorities have passed an order pursuant to the directions of this Court keeping the application under abeyance, such power has not been granted by the Act 2016 to the respondents. Hence the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to Section 84 of the Act 2016.
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that on combined reading of section 84(2) and (4) of the Act 2016 manifestly declares that the Commissioner after making such enquiry has consider it necessary in relation to the matters concerning the DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021 perspective plan or master plan or infrastructure development plan or area development plan or zonal development plan or development scheme, lay out regulations can grant permission unconditionally or with certain conditions or refuse permission citing the grounds, that to within 60 days of receipt of the application.
In the instant case after filing an application by the petitioners on 17.9.2012, the Commissioner has made an enquiry and directed the petitioners to submit NOC/clearance certificate from the concerned revenue officials. Accordingly, they have secured and produced the Collector’s certificate on 09.01.2015. As per the queries, the petitioners had submitted a zonal conversion certificate from the Government and also made the payments and registered 15% developed plots to the respondents. After compliance of the conditions of the respondents, the respondent authorities cannot with hold the lay out permission by putting the same under abeyance just because of the complaint made by third parties that to without having any substance.
12. Learned Counsel has further contended that even as per Section 114(2) of the Act 2016, the authorities have no right to decide the ownership of the land and they cannot make any roving enquiry. In fact the said issue was settled by the High Courts and Apex Court in several matters. To support his contention he relied on the latest judgment of the Division bench of Telangana High Court in A.Shalivahana Reddy vs. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and Others1. In the said judgment the learned Judge has relied on the judgment reported in K.Pavan Raj v.
The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad held as follows: ) 2020 SCC OnLine TS 1569 DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021 “If the applications for building permissions are rejected merely on the ground of third parties raising disputes of title, that may result in serious hardship to the owners of the properties where frivolous, speculative and vexatious claims may be made by third parties by setting up title”.
13. In fact in the said matter, the Court has decided that the Commissioner cannot decide the title dispute because that is not one of the duties assigned to him and he is not provided with any adjudicatory mechanism.
In Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited vs. Collector, Hyderabad the Court held as follows:
Of course, the Commissioner has to consider the objections, if any, raised for grant of permission. But, an objection raised by a member of the Committee itself would not be enough to reject the application for grant of permission. The Commissioner is required to make pragmatic assessment of the material available on record and decide the question of prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicants.
The applications for grant of permission cannot be rejected solely on the basis of TSLR entries. After all, the decision to grant permission itself would not confer any title upon the applicant, nor it would take away the rights of the objector (s), whether the Government or any individual, for asserting their right, title and interest in the land in respect of which permission has been granted and dispute the title in any manner known to law. Similarly, the Commissioner is not entitled to decide any disputed questions of title or the ownership. All that the Commissioner required to do is to find out prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicant and obviously such consideration is confined to only for the purposes of granting permission and nothing more.
In view of the above findings, it is clear that the respondents are not entitled to make roving enquiry with regard to the title of the petitioners.
14. In fact in the instant case, the petitioners are bonafide purchasers and after obtaining the NOC from the District Collector as per the revenue laws, the petitioners can be registered and made an application for lay out permission and in fact as directed by the respondents, the petitioners have also obtained certificate from the District Collector in 2015 which clearly establishes that the petitioners are absolute owners of the property and there are no allegations or disputes against the petitioners. There is no material showing that DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021 the land of the petitioners was also included in the SIT.
The SIT is not a statutory authority and special investigation is made only with regard to certain incidents happened in a particular place of investigation is ordered and in fact the same was even according to the version of the respondents, the said investigation is completed long back and report also submitted to the Government. But so far no action has been initiated basing on the report submitted by the SIT and there is no clear evidence that so far no enquiry has been conducted by the SIT with regard to the subject land. The petitioners were not enquired about the SIT at any point of time and hence the statement made in the impugned order with regard to the pendency of the SIT is also not a case of denial of lay out permission to the petitioners.
15. After notice the 2nd respondent has filed counter and they have been reiterated the contents in the impugned order. Apart from that they have further submitted that the jurisdiction for granting lay out within the city of Visakhapatnam is vested with the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (for short GVMC). By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.443 MAUD Department dated 18.12.2017, the GVMC is competent authority for approval of layout.
Hence, the petitioners are duty bound to apply for lay out approval online to the GVMC and as per section 24 of the Act 2016 if there is a disputed claim to the ownership of any piece of land included in the development scheme area in respect of which a declaration of intention to make a development scheme has been made and any entry in the record of rights or mutation relevant to such disputed claim is inaccurate or inconclusive, an enquiry may be held by an Officer appointed by the Government in case of any development scheme in the manner as DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021 prescribed or the Planning Officer in case of a Town Planning Scheme, at any time before the final allotment of the reconstituted plot/land for the purposes of deciding as to who shall be deemed to be the owner for the purposes of the Act and pass orders under his seal and signature and such decision shall not be subject to appeal but it shall not operate as a bar to a regular suit in a Court of competent jurisdiction.
In view of the same, the dispute of ownership is existing, the authorities cannot pass orders or cannot grant permission for lay out. In view of the same, in the instant case, if the petitioners, by virtue of the delegation of powers as per G.O.Ms.No.443 dated 18.12.2017, at the best the petitioners can approach the GVMC for grant of permissions.
16. Learned Senior Counsel Sri P.Veera Reddy appeared on behalf of the proposed respondent. According to the averments made in the affidavit filed along with implead petition that an extent of Ac.3.18cents in Sy.No.28/3 of Kommadi Village of Visakhapatnam District belongs to one G.Srinivasarao, S/o Suryanarayana. Similarly the abutting land to the above said land admeasuring Ac.3.90cents in Sy.No.28/2 of same village belongs to B.Srinivasarao, S/o Gurumurthy.
On account of their personal and family necessities in the year 1998, both the owners obtained loan from the father of the proposed respondent no.3 and created mortgage over the entire land by delivery of possession. The proposed respondent no.3 succeeded to the property after the death of her father on 13.5.2004 being the one surviving legal heir. Both the land owners by an affidavit dated 26.8.2009 and 11.9.2009 reiterated and acknowledged the debt under mortgage and expressed their ready and willingness to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the proposed respondent DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021 no.3. In view of the same, the proposed respondent is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same.
17. He further submitted that the proposed respondent no.3 has filed W.P.No.26875 of 2009 before the High Court questioning the in action of the revenue authorities representation dated 18.11.2009 with a reference to the deletion of land measuring in Sy.No.28/2 from notification under G.O.Ms.No.581 Revenue Registration dated 14.5.2005 published in A.P.Gazette Part I Extraordinary No.360 dated 31.5.2005 and the said writ petition is still pending.
Further submitted that when such writ petition is pending, it came to the knowledge of the petitioners vide District Collector’s proceedings dated 28.8.2012 that as observed that the land in Sy.No.28/2 in an extent of Ac.10.18cents was assigned to the freedom fighter by name Dakavarapu Ramulu and his son Dakavarapu Sankara Rao is free to sell away the assigned land as there is no restriction of non- alienation on the land assigned to freedom fighter, ordered for deletion of the said land from the list of prohibitory lands for registration under Registration Act.
Questioning the said proceedings, the proposed respondents have filed W.P.No.11248 of 2016 and the same is pending for adjudication before this Court. Subsequently, she also made an application for inclusion of her name in revenue records in respect of the lands in an extent of Ac.3.90cents in Sy.No.28/2 and Ac.3.18cents in Sy.No.28/3 of Kommadi village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal and District and the same was rejected by an endorsement number RMU011801398733 and the same was challenged in W.P.No.46947 of 2018 before this Court and the same is pending adjudication.
In view of the pending litigation, with regard to title, he made a petition before the DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021 respondent authorities for not to grant any permission to the petitioners. Hence he is the rightful owner of the subject property. Hence he requested to dismiss the writ petition till finalization of the litigation pending before this Court and requested to post this matter along with the pending writ petition.
18. Considering the submissions made by all the counsel and on perusal of the record, the respondent no.2 has passed the impugned order on the ground that the complaint made by one G.Krishna Rao on 01.02.2017 to the District Collector and Vice-Chairman, VUDA alleging land in an extent of Ac.10.18cents in Sy.No.28/2 of Kommadi Village, Visakhapatnam Rural was Government land and the lay out developers played fraud by creating fake documents as if the said Government land as originally assigned to Dakavarapu Ramulu under freedom fighter category and with the connivance of the revenue authorities, the said land was thereafter de-notified under section 22- A of the Registration Act and got transferred and also on the other ground that when there is an interim direction of maintaining status- quo in W.P.No.41915 of 2016 filed by one G.Srinivasarao, B.Srinivasarao and K.Padma. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are purchasers through a registered sale deed by paying huge amount. Even before the registration of the land in favour of the petitioners, the vendor assignee has obtained no objection certificate from the District Collector and the subject land was deleted from the prohibitory list under section 22-A of the Registration Act.
Subsequent to purchase, they made an application for grant of permission for lay out approval and consequently, the respondent authorities have directed the petitioners to get the clearance certificate from the revenue authorities and also certificate of DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021 conversion of land from the competent authorities.
Accordingly, by investing huge amount, he got converted the land from agriculture to commercial and also he has obtained clearance certificate from the District Collector on 18.11.2015. Subsequently on the directions of the respondents, the petitioners have also made an application for change of zone from recreation to residential by paying fifty two lakhs and after thorough enquiry, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.236 MAUD Department dated 05.10.2016 changing the land from recreation to residential. Even after getting zonal conversion, the respondents have directed the petitioners for payment of balance developmental charges and accordingly, they have paid Rs.14,37,495/- and also mortgaged 15% plotted area through document no.305/2017 dated 27.01.2017 and produced indemnity bonds to the respondents.
19. But surprisingly on perusal of the impugned orders, it clearly establishes that the authorities have not made any enquiry with regard to the complaint made by one G.Krishna Rao. Just basing on the assertions made in the complaint and also basing on the order of status-quo granted by this Court with regard to subject land they have passed the impugned orders.
When the petitioners have submitted all the relevant documents and made all compliances as directed by the respondents, when any complaint is received with regard to subject land, the authorities ought to have made a preliminary enquiry before getting the application pending or kept in abeyance. On reading of section 84(2) of the Act, 2016, the authorities cannot or could not kept the application pending for a long time and they should have decide the application within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application. If the authorities have not DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021 passed any order under section 84(2) of the Act, 2016, it presumed that it is a deemed permission under section 84(4) of the Act, 2016.
20. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the order of status-quo is passed in W.P.No.41915 of 2016 has merged into the final orders and in view of the same, there is no status-quo orders with regard to the land in Sy.No.228/2 of Kommadi Village.
21. As per the observations made in the petition filed by the 3rd respondent shows that there is no valid document or title in favour of them. In fact they themselves have stated that they have filed an application before the revenue authorities for inclusion of their names in the revenue records and the same has been rejected by the revenue authorities. This itself shows that the private parties have not established their right over the properties, except saying that they have filed multiple writ petitions and the same were pending before this Court.
Just because pendency of the writ petitions filed by the proposed respondents, the authorities cannot be debarred for granting of lay out permission and in fact as per the provisions of the Act and also the decision relied on by the petitioner, it clearly establishes that the respondent authorities are not entitled to make any roving enquiry with regard to the ownership or title of the properties. In fact the very dispute in this writ petition is with regard to granting of lay out permission not for deciding the title in favour of the petitioners. If at all the respondents more specifically the proposed respondents have any disputes with regard to the title, they are entitled to approach before the competent civil court.
22. In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 21.5.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent is contrary to the provisions of the Act,2016 more specifically section 114(2) and section 84(2) of DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021 the Act 2016. Accordingly, the same is set aside and directed the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application made by the petitioners for grant of lay out permission as per section 84(2)(4) of Act 2016 within a period of 60 days.
As contended by the 2nd respondent that powers are delegated to the GVMC, the 2nd respondent cannot direct the petitioners to approach the GVMC as per G.O.Ms.No.433. When they have made an application for change of classification of the land and the same was processed by the 2nd respondent in the place of VUDA, now they cannot delegate the same to the other authority.
23. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.