Section 12 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short, the Act) read with Rule 13-A of the Urban Development Authority (Hyderabad) Rules, 1977 (for short, Rules). - Change of use of Land from residential to industrial - public notice was given, no objections were filed - permission granted as per rules - later it can not be challenged by way of writ - their lordships dismissed the writs =The Air Force Officers Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vayupuri, Secunderabad, rep. by its Honourary Secretary, and others..Petitioners Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development (II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.....Respondents = 2014 (March. Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11028

 Section 12 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short, the Act) read with Rule 13-A of the Urban Development Authority (Hyderabad) Rules, 1977 (for short, Rules).  - Change of use of Land from residential to industrial - public notice was given, no objections were filed - permission granted as per rules - later it can not be challenged by way of writ - their lordships dismissed the writs =

On receipt of the remarks, the Government issued a draft notification on
03.11.2004 inviting objections and suggestions from the public as required under
Section 12 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for
short, the Act) read with Rule 13-A of the Urban Development Authority
(Hyderabad) Rules, 1977 (for short, Rules).  The notification was published in
Andhra Pradesh Extraordinary Gazette No.464 dated 06.11.2004 giving seven days
time to the general public to file any objections or suggestions.  Since no
objections were received from the public, the second respondent vide his letter
dated 20.11.2004 informed the Government that the fifth respondent paid the
necessary development charges and processing fee for change of land use and
hence final orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No.505 dated 03.12.2004 changing the
land use from residential use to industrial use for establishment of an
automobile servicing unit.=
The petitioners admittedly did not raise any objections when the draft
notification was published in the Gazette and in any event Section 12 of the Act
read with Rule 13-A of the Rules does not contemplate issuance of individual
notices to any person. This court in K. Gopi's case (3 supra) held that when no
objections were filed by persons and authorities concerned expressed 'no
objection' and no bias was alleged against them, the impugned Government Orders
have to be upheld. In view of upholding of the impugned Government Orders, the
consideration of decisions cited by the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5
are unnecessary.

19.     The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. 

2014 (March. Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11028

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO          

WRIT PETITION No.21003 OF 2006 AND BATCH    

18-03-2014

The Air Force Officers Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vayupuri,
Secunderabad, rep. by its Honourary Secretary, and others..Petitioners

Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Secretary Municipal Administration
and Urban Development (II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and
others.....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Hari Haran

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri G.P. for MA & UDA.

<Gist :

>Head Note :

?Cases referred

1.  2012 (3) SCC 727
2.  2002 (2) ALT 501 (D.B.)
3.  AIR 1995 AP 246
4.  1993 Supp (2) SCC 433
5.  1997 (3) ALD 449 (D.B.)
6.  (2005) 5 SCC 632

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO          

WRIT PETITION Nos.21003 and 23099 of 2006  

COMMON ORDER:    

        Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Municipal Corporation for first respondent, the learned
Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned counsel for respondents
4 and 5 in both the cases.

2.      These two writ petitions are disposed of by a common order in view of the
attack made against the same Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.505, Municipal   
Administration and Urban Development (II), Department, dated 03.12.2004 and
G.O.Ms.No.634, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (DI) Department,  
dated 01.07.2005 by the petitioners in both the writ petitions.

3.      The petitioners in W.P.No.21003 of 2006 are The Air Force Officers Co-
operative Housing Society Limited, Vayupuri, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad (Society)
and its two members, whereas the petitioners in W.P.No.23099 of 2006 are members
of the said Society.  They assailed the validity of the said Government Orders
issued in favour of respondents 4 and 5.

4.      The Society consists of members belonging to the officers of Air Force who
developed a layout in an extent of 50 acres in survey No.218/1/2 of Malkajgiri
Village, Hyderabad East Taluk, Hyderabad District after purchasing the same from
the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.1427, Revenue Department, dated    
08.09.1964.  It formed a layout after obtaining sanction from the Direction of
Town Planning, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad on 17.06.1976 and allotted plots to its
members.  Plot No.133, admeasuring 989 square yards was allotted in favour of
one Lt.Col.H.S.Sawhney.  He obtained permission for construction of ground and
first floor under permit No.02/239/2001 dated 04.09.2001 from the erstwhile
Malkajgiri Municipality, but only ground floor was constructed.  He sold the
said semi finished house along with land to the fifth respondent.

5.      The fifth respondent submitted a representation on 12.04.2004 to the
Government requesting for change of land use from residential use to industrial
use for service industry with an intention to build a Hitech automobile service
centre.  The representation was sent to the second respondent for his remarks.
The second respondent vide his letter dated 05.08.2004 submitted detailed
remarks to the Government stating that the site purchased by the fifth
respondent is presently covered by Zonal Development Plan of revised Moula Ali
Zone which was earmarked for residential use zone and site is surrounded by
existing 150 feet wide road (Inner ring road bye-pass) on southern side, 60 feet
wide road on western side, residential houses on north and eastern sides.  He
further reported that the entire stretch abutting 150 feet wide road is proposed
as commercial belt in the draft revised Master Plan 2020 and recommended the
proposal to the Government for change of land use from residential use to
commercial use/service industry use - Automobile service station since service
industries are permissible in general commercial use zone and as well as in
industrial use zone.

6.      On receipt of the remarks, the Government issued a draft notification on
03.11.2004 inviting objections and suggestions from the public as required under
Section 12 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for
short, the Act) read with Rule 13-A of the Urban Development Authority
(Hyderabad) Rules, 1977 (for short, Rules).  The notification was published in
Andhra Pradesh Extraordinary Gazette No.464 dated 06.11.2004 giving seven days
time to the general public to file any objections or suggestions.  Since no
objections were received from the public, the second respondent vide his letter
dated 20.11.2004 informed the Government that the fifth respondent paid the
necessary development charges and processing fee for change of land use and
hence final orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No.505 dated 03.12.2004 changing the
land use from residential use to industrial use for establishment of an
automobile servicing unit.

7.      The fifth respondent again submitted another representation on 25.01.2005
stating that he wants to utilise the part of the proposed building for
commercial purpose and requested the Government to issue orders accordingly.
Since the second respondent earlier recommended for change of land use to
commercial use/industrial use, the Government issued a draft notification on
30.04.2005 inviting objections and suggestions from the public and the
notification was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette No.279 dated 06.05.2005
giving fifteen days time to the general public to file any objections or
suggestions.  Since no objections were received from the public, the second
respondent informed the Government that the fifth respondent paid necessary
development charges and processing fee and the Government after a period of 25
days from the date of issue of draft notification, issued final orders in
G.O.Ms.No.634 dated 01.07.2005 changing the land use from industrial use to
commercial use.  The said Government Orders are under challenge in these two
writ petitions.

8.      It is the case of respondents 1 and 2 that the Act does not require
issuance of notice by the Government to the individuals and the Bye-laws of the
Society cannot over ride statutory power vested under the Act.

9.      Respondents 4 and 5 filed a counter-affidavit stating that they are not
members of the first petitioner Society and the Bye-laws do not bind on them.
In any event, the said Bye-laws cannot over ride statutory powers vested under
the Act.  Since the entire stretch of 150 feet inner ring road was proposed as a
commercial belt in the draft revised master plan 2020 and the petitioners having
failed to raise any objections to the revised proposed master plan, cannot file
the present writ petitions.  They started construction in the month of August,
2006 by investing huge amounts after obtaining permissions from the competent
authority on 17.05.2006.  They waited for 15 months to get the land converted
and 10 months for getting building approvals from respondents 2 and 3 and thus
there is no hastiness on the part of respondents 1 to 3 in taking action.

10.     Respondents 4 and 5 further filed an additional
counter-affidavit stating that during the pendency of these writ petitions, the
Government revised the master plan for Moula Ali zone segment vide G.O.Ms.No.288
dated 03.04.2008 making the entire stretch commercial.  For the said change
also, the petitioners did not raise any objections.

11.     The learned counsel for petitioners contended that the               Bye-
laws of the Society restrict sale of plots to non-members and also regulate the
constructions.  The fifth respondent did not become a member of the society and
violated the Bye-laws of the Society.  He relied on a decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. V. State of
Karnataka1 and contended that the change of land use without notice to the
petitioners is illegal.

12.     On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal
Corporation submitted that the procedure prescribed under Section 12 of the Act
read with Rule 13 of the Rules have been followed while issuing the impugned
Government Orders.  He also submitted that the said Rule was upheld by this
Court in the decision reported in Forum for a better Hyderabad V. Govt. of
A.P.2.

13.     The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the Bye-laws of
the Society cannot regulate the purchaser from his construction activity and in
any event since respondents 1 and 2 have followed the procedure for conversion
of residential use zone to commercial use zone, it cannot be held that the
impugned Government Orders are illegal.  He also submitted that in view of the
subsequent change of zonal plan under G.O.Ms.No.288 dated 03.04.2008 making the
entire stretch of 150 feet road as commercial zone, the challenge of the
petitioners is misconceived.  He relied on K.Gopi V. Govt. of A.P.3,
M.V.Elisabeth V. Harwan Investment & Trading4, Dr.A.L.N.Prasad V. State of A.P.5
and Zoroastrian Coop. Housing Society Ltd. V. District Registrar, Coop.
Societies (Urban)6.

14.     Chapter-3 of the Act deals with Master Plan and Zonal Development Plans.
Section 6 deals with preparation of Master Plan and Section 7 deals with Zonal
Development Plans.  Section 8 provides for consultation with the local authority
comprised within the development area at the initial stage of the preparation of
the plan, after preparation of draft plan and before submission to the
Government for approval.  Section 10 comes into operation immediately after plan
was approved by the Government.  Section 12 deals with modification to the plan.
The relevant provisions of Section 12 read as follows:
"12.  Modifications to plan:-  (1) The Authority may make such modifications to
the plan as it thinks fit, being modifications which, in its opinion, do not
effect important alterations in the character of the plan and which do not
relate to the extent of land uses or the standards of population density.

(2)     The Government may suo motu or on a reference from the Authority make any
modifications to the plan, whether such modifications are of the nature
specified in sub-section (1) or otherwise.

(3)     Before making any modifications to the plan, the Authority or, as the case
may be, the Government shall publish a notice in such form and manner as may be
prescribed inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to
the proposed modifications before such date as may be specified in the notice
and shall consider all objections and suggestions that may be received by the
Authority or the Government.

(4)     Every modification made under the provisions of this section shall be
published in such manner as the Authority or the Government, as the case may be,
may specify and the modifications shall come into operation either on the date
of the publication or on such other date as the Authority or the Government may
fix.
(5)..........
(6)..........
(7).........."

15.     The Rules were made in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1)
of Section 58 of the Act.  Rule 13 deals with modifications to the Master Plan.
Rule 13-A deals with the modifications to the Master Plan by the Government and
it reads as follows:
"13-A.  Modifications to the Master Plan by the Government:- (1)  In case the
Government desire to make any modification to the Master Plan under sub-section
(2) of Section 12 of the Act, a notification shall after consultation with the
Authority be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette in such form as the
Government may deem fit inviting objections and suggestions from any person or
local authority affected directly or indirectly with respect to the Master Plan
proposed to be modified giving FIFTEEN DAYS time in respect of lands proposed to
be converted to other than Industrial use and SEVEN DAYS time in respect of
lands proposed to be converted from any use to 'Industrial use' for the receipt
of such objections and suggestions.

(2)  Soon after the objections and suggestions are received by the Government,
the Government may, if necessary, have local enquiries conducted and give an
opportunity to the persons affected to state their objections before the
modifications are approved and published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette."

16.     In the instant case, seven days notice as contemplated in the Rules was
given before issuing G.O.Ms.No.505 dated 03.12.2004 and fifteen days notice was
given before issuing G.O.Ms.No.634 dated 01.07.2005 changing the land use from
residential use to industrial use and from industrial use to commercial use
respectively.  Thus the procedural compliance was done by the first respondent,
as the representation was made to the first respondent only.  Thus, it cannot be
held that the impugned Government Orders are illegal.

17.     The decision of Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. cited by
the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the
case.  The said case arose under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act.  When
land was acquired for the purpose of a cooperative housing society without
framing a scheme which is a sine qua non for treating acquisition of land for a
cooperative housing society as an acquisition for "public purpose" within the
meaning of Sec.3(f)(vi) of the Act, the same was quashed by the High Court and
the said decision was upheld by the Supreme Court.

18.     Now, from the additional counter-affidavit, it is clear that the
Government issued G.O.Ms.No.288 dated 03.04.2008 making the entire stretch i.e.,
the road from R.K.Puram to ECIL X Roads which abuts Vayupuri as commercial use
zone.  The petitioners admittedly did not raise any objections when the draft
notification was published in the Gazette and in any event Section 12 of the Act
read with Rule 13-A of the Rules does not contemplate issuance of individual
notices to any person. This court in K. Gopi's case (3 supra) held that when no
objections were filed by persons and authorities concerned expressed 'no
objection' and no bias was alleged against them, the impugned Government Orders
have to be upheld. In view of upholding of the impugned Government Orders, the
consideration of decisions cited by the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5
are unnecessary.

19.     The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.  No costs.  Miscellaneous
petitions pending, if any in these writ petitions, shall stand closed.
______________________________  
A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J      
Date:18.03.2014

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515