K. Gopi Chand and others vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and others

S.R. Nayak, J. 1. 56 persons in all claiming to be the residents of Govindarajulagutta locality of Girmajipet of Warrangal town have filed this common and joint writ petition, calling in question the validity and legality of the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 422, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated 9-7-1993 according permission for change of land use in respect of residential site consisting of two houses bearing Municipal Registration H. No. 8-7-102 and 8-7-96/1 situated at Govindarajulagutta in favour of the 6th respondent in this petition. This writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation to espouse the cause of the public at large in the said locality.

In the writ petition it is averred that there is a 60 feet road from Warrangal Railway station to Hanamakonda enroute warrangal Chowrasta, Pochamma Maidan,-MGM Hospital and on the said road there is a small by-lane on the first right side which leads to Sri Govindaraja swamy temple at Girmajipet. The road connecting Sri Govindaraja swamy temple to the station road measures one to two furlongs in length and:width of the said road is between 15''.6" and 20''.6". Abutting this road there were residential houses. In the master plan prepared by the fourth respondent-Urban Development Authority under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, for short ''the Act'', the site consisting of two houses bearing Registration No. 8-7-102 and S-7-96/1 was shown to be a residential area. The 6th respondent made an application on 17-2-1993 to the first respondent-Government seeking variation of change of land use. The Government after receipt of the said application obtained reports from all the prescribed authorities and on the basis of the favourable reports submitted by the Authorities, the Government issued a draft notification as required under sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act and the same was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette Part I Extraordinary dated 14th June, 1993. There is no dispute between the parties that no one has filed any objection to the draft notification. There afterwards the Government issued the impugned notification according permission for variation of the land use from residential to central commercial use.

Sri Narayana Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners firstly contended that the impugned notification came to be issued by the first respondent Government in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the residents of the locality were-not notified and had no knowledge of the application filed by the sixth respondent seeking variation. Secondly, Sri Narayana Reddy contended that the road connecting Sri Govindaraja Swamy temple to the station road is 16 to 20 feet in width whereas on the false and incorrect information submitted by the authorities to the effect that the width of the road is 30 feet, the Government has accorded permission for variation. He would elaborate his contention by saying that the impugned order of the Government is based on a non-existing fact. Thirdly, Sri Narayana Reddy contended that if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would cause great public injury affecting the interest of the public at large in general and the residents of Govindarajulagutta in particular. For all these reasons Sri Narayana Reddy would maintain that the intervention by this court had become necessary. On the other hand tie learned Government Pleader , Sri B. V. Suo-baiah, the learned Counsel for the 6th respondent and the learned standing counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents would support the action of the Government. They would highlight that the Government Order was issued by the Government after complying with all the requirements of law as provided under the Act and the present writ petition though in the guise of public interest petition is intended to serve as a collateral interest of a person who is. already running a cinema house in the same locality.

Sufficient materials are placed before the court that to show that all the prescribed authorities under the Act have submitted their favourable reports and "no objections" to accord permission for variation of the land use. It is not necessary for this court to refer to all those reports because it is not the case of the writ petitioner that favourable reports-are not submitted to the Government by the authorities. The argument of Sri1 Narayana Reddy is that the reports were defective and do not represent the real facts and particularly he would highlight that the width of the road is only 16 to 20 feet and not 30 feet. After these reports were received by the Government, the Government issued draft notification under sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act calling for objections if any from the public at large. None filed any objection before the Government. Therefore the Government acting on the favourable reports issued by the prescrib- ed authorities issued the impugned order according permission for variation of the land use. The petitioners having failed to file any objection to the draft notification cannot be allowed to say that the final order was passed by the Government in violation of principles of natural justice. However, the argument of Sri Narayana Reddy is that in addition to the draft notification which was published in the A.P. Gazette noted above, the Government would have taken some other measure or process to inform the residents of the locality in question and such a course was not adopted by the Government in this case. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable to the court. It is not the requirement of law that the Government in addition to publishing the draft proposal in the Gazette should also take some other steps or measures to inform the residents of the locality concerned. At this juncture it may be noted that once a notice of draft proposal was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette it should be deemed that proper notice was caused to ail the concerned.

The respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 6 have filed counters in this petition and both of them have denied all material allegations made by the petitioner touching facts. The main question which arises out of the pleadings of the parties is that whether the width of the road connecting the temple to station road is 16 feet to 20 feet as claimed by the petitioner or 30 feet as claimed by the respondent-authorities and the,6th respondent. This question is a pure question of fact which cannot be decided on the basis of the affidavits and the counter-affidavits. Sri Narayana Reddy strenuously appealed to the Court to appoint a Commissioner to find out the truth of the rival claims of the petitioners and the respondents. At this distance of time the Court is, not inclined to take such steps particularly when the petitioners did not file any objection to the draft proposal. Further it is not one Authority but all the Authorities concerned have submitted their favourable reports expressing their "no objection" to grant variation of land use in favour of the sixth respondent. It is not the case of the petitioners that all the Authorities were hostile or biased against the residents of the-locality and they submitted false and incorrect reports. At any rate no necessary foundation or matrix is laid in the pleadings to bring'' home such charge. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity or illegality committed by the first respondent-Government in passing the impugned order according to variation of land use. In that view of the matter the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Before parting with this case it is-made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the concerned public authorities to examine and take such steps which are permissible to them in law on the basis of the grievance made by the petitioners in their representation.

Petition dismissed.