M SAROJINI Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Lr.No.2669/MP2/HUDA/97 dated 8-6-1399 by HUDA and consequential letter No.G/129/BP/1777/97, dated 19-6-1999, of Serilingampally Municipality and P.O. No.G/1/UC/MCS/TPS/2000-2001, dated 4-12-2000 , of Serilingampally Municipality and quash the same.

(2.) The facts, which are not in dispute, are that, the petitioners who are 27 in number purchased different extents of land totalling to Ac.4.70 guntas from one P.Sarveshwara Rao in Sy.Nos.55 to 59 of Madhapur Village under registered sale deeds. All the petitioners made a joint application for development of the land to the 2nd respondent-Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (for short 'the Hilda') through letter, dated 4-7-1996. Upon which the 2nd respondent through letter dated 10-6-1997 directed the petitioners to remit an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards development charges. Further the 2nd respondent also required the petitioners to submit affidavits that the land in the lay out application is within the urban land ceiling exemptions in terms of G.O.Ms.No.733 and the total land held by them does not exceed the ceiling limit. By letter, dated 6-7-1997, the petitioners had intimated about the remittance of the above said amount demanded towards development charges and they also gave affidavits as required by the 2nd respondent with regard to applicability of G.O.Ms.733. The petitioners also obtained land use certificate, dated 10-7-1997, from the 2nd respondent. In the said certificate the land under the lay out was shown as earmarked for residential purpose in the zonal development plan. On 22-7-1997 the 2nd respondent intimated the 3rd respondent-Serilingampally Municipality that permission for development of the lay out was granted. Consequently the 3rd respondent granted lay out permit after collecting an amount of Rs.3,67,500.00 towards security fee and lay out fee from the petitioners. After the receipt of the said permission, the petitioners commenced the construction work in the lay out. At that stage, the Assistant Engineer of Irrigation Department, directed the petitioners to stop the construction on the ground that the lay out was subject to submergence in Durgam Cheruru (Tank). Similarly directions were also issued to the petitioners by the revenue authorities. However, the revenue authorities again approached the 2nd respondent for clarification in this regard. Further the 2nd respondent through letter No.4182/MPL/ HUDA/96, dated 25-10-1997, had intimated the proper facts to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District. In the said letter the Collector was informed that any attempt to keep the lay out in abeyance and to cancel the permission already given is unlawful and may also lead to legal complications. After receipt of the said information, in a meeting at the Secretariat by the Secretary, Revenue Department, the Joint Collector, Rang Reddy District through letter No. 137/6088/ 95, dated 17-1-1998, informed the 3rd respondent - Municipality that the lay out can be released and the petitioners could be permitted to continue the construction. Consequently through letter, dt. 23-1-1998, the petitioners were permitted to continue the construction work. While the construction work was in progress, the 2nd respondent through letter, dated 17-11-1998, issued a show cause notice to the petitioners for cancellation of the draft lay out on the ground that the land in which the layout falls is in the core area and G.O.Ms.No.733 would not be applicable. In the said notice it was indicated that initially permission was given on the premise that the G.O.Ms.No.733 was applicable, as the Madhapur would fall in peripheral area and since the Government had issued a memo dated 3-9-1997 to the contrary, the petitioners were called upon to show cause why the draft layout permission should not be cancelled. In the show cause notice, the said memo was referred at item No.3 of the reference. In the said show cause notice, it was further indicated that U.L.C. clearance is required, the petitioners filed their objections and however considering their objections, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 8-6-1999 cancelling the draft lay out mainly in two grounds viz., (1) U.L.C. clearance is required for the subject land since the same is declared as a core area, and (2) the subject land was in close proximity to Durgam Cheruvu and a part of the site is falling under Full Tank Level (for short "the F.T.L") of the said tank. It was further directed to remove the compound wall immediately, which was constructed pursuant to approval of draft lay out. Aggrieved by the orders of cancelling 8-6-1999, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) The official respondents filed counters denying all the allegations made by the petitioners and justifying their action in cancelling the draft lay out.