Allowed

Smt. Sajja Kanaka Durga, v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Jul 2022WP/16983/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that showing land as an 'existing road' in development agreements or building permissions does not automatically vest ownership in the Municipal Corporation. Petitioner retains title to the land unless formal acquisition proceedings with compensation are completed.

What did the court decide?

Declared that respondents cannot lay road or interfere with petitioner's possession unless land is acquired through appropriate legal proceedings with compensation.

Smt. Sajja Kanaka Durga, Vs the State of Ap — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.16983 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner was the owner and possessor of Ac.1.00 cents of land in Sy.No.115 (P) of Gunadala Village, Vijayawada Urban, Krishna District having inherited the same from her mother. In 2018, the petitioner entered into a Development Agreement dated 12.01.2018 with the 7^th respondent, for construction of a residential complex, under which she agreed to alienate Ac.0.62 cents. The 7^th respondent also obtained further land from the neighbouring owners and developed the said land including the land of the petitioner, after obtaining the necessary permissions from the Muncipal Corporation vide BA.No.1073/2776/B/VMC/GUN/2017, dated 19.02.2018. This development has been completed.

¶5

The 7^th respondent took up development of a neighbouring piece of land over an extent of Ac.3.50 cents in Sy.113/2 and 113/4 as a group development housing scheme. Since there is a mandatory requirement, under the development code that such housing schemes require peripheral roads, the 7^th respondent is said to have approached the petitioner, to give consent for a road to be laid across the land of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.0.20 cents. In view of the past transactions, the petitioner agreed for such a perusal and gave her consent to the Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada on 08.06.2020. This consent was given by the

¶6

¶7

petitioner on the understanding that she would be entitled to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) issued by the respondents 4 and 5. As these steps were not being taken and TDRs were not being issued to the petitioner, she revoked her consent on 03.08.2021.

¶8

The petitioner contends that on 06.08.2021, the 7^th respondent started laying a road through her land and the General Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner had objected to the same and had also given representations to the respondents 4 and 5 on 08.08.2021, about the illegal action of the 7^th respondent in laying a road through the land of the petitioner. As the petitioner apprehended further damage to her property, she has approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition. Various reliefs have been sought in the Writ petition, including the cancellation of the building permission given to the 7^th Respondent for the new development Project. These reliefs are not necessary for the Petitioner as, the issue before this court is on the question of the right and title of the Petitioner over the 20 cents of land.

¶9

The respondents had entered appearance and have filed their counter affidavits. The sum and substance of the said counter affidavits is that, the land of the petitioner, to an extent of Ac.0.20 cents, had been shown as an existing road in the development agreement, executed between the petitioner and the 7^th respondent on 12.01.2018, and also in the building applications filed for the development of the land of the petitioner in the year 2018. On this basis, it is contended

¶10

¶11

that the said land had become the property of the Municipal Corporation and the petitioner would not be entitled to the issuance of any TDR on account of a road being laid through the said land.

¶12

Sri A. Satya Prasad learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Sri Challa Ajay Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to the Development Agreement dated 12.01.2018. In this agreement, the land under dispute was shown to be outside the development area as the boundary of the development area is shown to be the disputed land in which a road is said to exist. Similarly, the building permission granted to the 7^th respondent also shows this disputed area/road as being situated outside the development area.

¶13

Sri A. Satya Prasad, the learned Senior Counsel contends that merely because the land of the petitioner had been described as an existing road, in the development agreement and building permissions, the petitioner would not lose her right and ownership over the said land. He would further contend that, no road has been laid over the said land and it is only when such a road was sought to be laid over the land of the petitioner, that the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶14

Sri N. Ashwani Kumar learned counsel, appearing for the 7^th respondent would submit that the 7^th respondent is not interested in laying any road through the land of the petitioner as the proposed development being taken up by the

¶15

¶16

7^th respondent has an existing peripheral road from which access is available for the group housing scheme. He would rely upon clause 12 of Rule 61 of the Development Code to contend that the requirement for grant of permission for a group housing scheme is the existence of a public access road, of 12 mts width, with two lane black topping, within the applicant’s site on any one side at the periphery. He draws the attention of this Court to the building permission given, in 2021 for the second development, to the 7^th respondent, which shows that a peripheral road has been provided for in the building plan.

¶17

It is the contention of the Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 4^th respondent that the land being claimed by the petitioner has vested in the 4^th respondent on account of the petitioner having shown this land as an existing road, adjacent to the area developed under the building permission, granted in the year 2018.

¶18

It is further contended that this road was shown as a peripheral road, to meet the requirement of providing for a peripheral road, to a group development scheme in the building permission, sanctioned in 2018 development.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that the land in dispute, shown as an existing road was never transferred by the petitioner either under the earlier building permission granted in 2018 or in the present building permission, obtained by the 7^th respondent, in relation to a neighbouring piece of land. It is the case of the respondents that this land

¶20

¶21

was shown as a peripheral road for the purpose of obtaining the building permission in 2018 and as such, the petitioner cannot resile from this possession. It is also the contention of the official respondents that the said land vests in the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. A perusal of the building permission granted in 2018, which has been produced by the 4^th respondent would show that there are two peripheral roads to the said development and the land of the petitioner has been shown as an existing road on the third side. As noticed above, the requirement for grant of building permission for a group housing scheme is the availability of one peripheral road. In the circumstances, there was no need for the petitioner to give this land as a peripheral road. Further, even if the land has been shown as an existing road, the same would not vest automatically in the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. The said land would have to be transferred to the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, by way of a Registered Deed of Gift or in such manner as may be prescribed under the Building Rules applicable in Vijayawada. The learned standing counsel for the Municipal Corporation could not produce any such document of transfer nor place any provision of law or regulation which would vest the property in the Municipal Corporation.

¶22

In these circumstances, it must be held that the ownership of the said land continues with the petitioner and the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation would not have any right or title over the said land. In the event of the Municipal Corporation requiring the said land, the same would have to

¶23

¶24

be obtained in accordance with the procedure established by law and with due compensation to the petitioner.

¶25

In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed to the extent of declaring that the respondents 4 and 5 cannot lay a road over the said land or interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the land admeasuring Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.115 (P) of Gunadala Village, Vijayawada Urban, Krishna District, unless and until appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law, are taken for acquisition of the land from the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶27

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶28

Date : 13-07-2022 RJS

¶29

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.16983 of 2021

¶32

Date : 13.07.2022

¶33

RJS

¶34

Smt. Sajja Kanaka Durga, v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sajja Kanaka Durga, v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Busa Krishnarao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Minnu Mobiles, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A Chandra Sekhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dadi Suri Satyanarayana Vs the State of Ap

M/s. Siva Shankar Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kankanala Ramabrahmam Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh