Allowed

Chintaluri Venkata Rajeswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By its Principal

Telangana HC23 Sept 2016WP/31395/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court held that a Gram Panchayat lacks the jurisdiction to reject a draft layout plan. The court directed the respondent Panchayat to transmit the plan to the competent District Town and Country Planning Officer for technical approval.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 30.08.2016 returned by the third respondent was set aside, and the third respondent was directed to forward the plan to the second respondent.

Chintaluri Venkata Rajeswara Rao Vs The State… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.31395 OF 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in returning the draft layout plan submitted by the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned standing counsel for Panchayat Raj, representing 3^rd respondent.

¶6

The 1^st petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of an extent of Ac.0.49 cents of land and the 2^nd petitioner claims that she is the absolute owner of an extent of Ac.1.18 cents of land in R.S.No.33/2 situated in Morampudi Revenue village of Hukumpeta Gram Panchayat, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. The petitioners herein submitted draft layout plan to the 3^rd respondent with a request to transmit the same to the 2^nd respondent. The 3^rd respondent returned the application of the petitioners on 30-08-2016 on the ground that the 1^st petitioner has not obtained permission from the competent authority for conversion of agriculture land into non-agriculture land.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 3^rd respondent has no right of whatsoever to return the layout plan submitted by the petitioners. He further submitted that role of the 3^rd respondent is to forward the layout plan to the 2^nd respondent. To substantiate the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.67, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts.IV) Department, dated 26-02-2002.

¶8

¶9

In order to appreciate rival contentions, it is not out of place to extract sub-clause (1) and (2) of Clause11 of G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 26-02-2002, which reads thus:

¶10

“ 11. Prior Technical Approval from Director of Town and Country Planning is necessary for certain permissions:

¶11

(1) The Competent Authority for the Technical Approval-

¶12

a) The District Town and Country Planning Officer is the Competent Authority to accord technical approval for the layouts.

¶13

(i) in the villages with 10,000 or more population (ii) in the Urban Centers to be notified separately by the Director of Town and Country Planning.

¶14

(iii) In all the mandal headquarters irrespective of the population of the village.

¶15

b) The Gram Panchayat of villages with less than 10,000 populations are competent to accord sanction for the layouts, in their respective villages, wherever the Indicative Land Use Plan is prepared for the village by the Town and Country Planning Department, the layouts sanctioned prepared will be in conformity with them.

¶16

i) in respect of the villages with more than 5,000 and less than 10,000 population, the District Town and Country Planning Officer shall prepare Indicative Land Use plans and keep them available with the respective Gram Panchayats.

¶17

ii) In respect of the villages with less than 5,000 population, the District Town and Country Planning Officer shall get the Indicative Land Use plans by engaging the qualified personnel and approve them and keep them available with the respective Gram Panchayat.

¶18

(2) On receipt of the application for layout approval, the Executive Authority may call for further particulars, if required and necessary. The applicant shall furnish the required particulars within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice by him. The Executive Authority shall thereafter forward the proposals to the District Town and Country Planning Officer wherever necessary, with the layout plan and full particulars within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of particulars from the applicant wherever required. The District Town and Country Planning Officer shall within thirty (3) days after furnishing of all the particulars to them, forward tentatively approved layout to the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat concerned. The Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat may submit a report within fifteen days after laying the Water Bound Macadam (WBM) roads by the applicant as per the specifications appended at Annexure-B of these rules. The concerned District Town and Country Planning Department shall inspect the site and approve the layout within fifteen (15) days, if the demarcated tentative layout is in accordance with the tentatively approved layout and in accordance with these rules; and shall communicate the technical clearance for final approval of the layout to the Gram

¶19

¶20

Panchayat concerned for all those falling within above sub-rule (1) (a).”

¶21

A perusal of the above clause clearly demonstrates that the 3^rd respondent has no right of whatsoever to return the layout plan submitted by the petitioners. The role of the 3^rd respondent is to transmit the applications received by him to the 2^nd respondent. As per G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 26-02-2002, the 2^nd respondent alone is the competent authority for the technical approval.

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 26-02-2002, the order, dated 30-08-2016 passed by the 3^rd respondent is set aside. However, the petitioners are at liberty to re-submit the layout plan to the 3^rd respondent. If the petitioners re-submit the layout plan, the 3^rd respondent is hereby directed to forward the same to the 2^nd respondent.

¶23

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶24

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶25

DATED: 23-09-2016. Hsd

Chintaluri Venkata Rajeswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintaluri Venkata Rajeswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By its Principal

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

Mr. Nune Srinivas, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Sidda Crop Care, Vs The Director of Agriculture, State of Andhra Pradesh

Manikanti Venkata Ramanamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Urvaara Crop Care, Vs The Director of Agriculture

G.Jyothi RAni Vs a.v.N.Rao

United Christian Church of India Vs Krishna University