Holding

The appellant cannot be deprived of her property rights without compensation; the impugned judgments are set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Summary

M. Naga Venkata Lakshmi purchased a 167‑sq‑yd plot in an unapproved layout that was later incorporated into the approved Radha Krishna Nagar layout, where her plot was shown as a reserved open space. Her application for building‑plan sanction was rejected by the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation on that ground. She filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court, and the dismissal was affirmed by a Division Bench. The Supreme Court held that the authorities failed to disclose the earmarking of the plot as open space and that there is no provision allowing deprivation of her property rights without compensation. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower‑court judgments and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. The Court also directed that all relevant records be placed before the High Court for further proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant can be deprived of her property rights without payment of compensation when the plot is earmarked as reserved open space in the approved layout.
Whether the appellant was denied a right to be heard before the layout plan was finalized and the plot was designated as open space.
Whether the Municipal Corporation's refusal to sanction the building plan was lawful in view of the plot's status.
Whether the Urban Development Authority had the authority to regularise or acquire the plot without compensation.

Legislation cited

Subjects

property rightsreserved open spaceurban development authorityregularisation of plotcompensationdue processmunicipal corporationTransfer of Property ActAndhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act

Judgment

A M. NAGA VENKATA LAKSHMI
v.
-<
VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPN. AND ANR.

SEPTEMBER 18, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND U.S. BEDI, JJ.]

Transfer ofProperty Act: 1,_
Right ofproperty-Sale-purchase ofland/plot-Application for
c sanction of building plan dismissed by Municipal Corporation on
ground that the plot fell on the reserved open space in the approved
layout-Challenge to-Dismissed by Single Judge ofHigh Court-Writ
appeal dismissed by Division Bench of the High Court-On appeal,
Held: Authority did not disclose to vendee about the fact ofearmarking
D
of the plot in question for the purpose ofproviding an open space to
other land-owners-Prima facie, there is no provision in terms whereof ~
the vendee could be deprived ofher right ofproperty without payment
of any compensation-Hence, the impugned judgment set aside and
the matter remitted to Single Judge ofthe High Court/or consideration
E afresh.

Appellant purchased a plot situate at Balayya Sastry's layout,
Visakhapatnam by way of a sale deed. However, the layout was not
an approved one. A revised plan was approved in the year 1989, but
F the plot belonging to the appellant was not regularized. Aggrieved, ~·
the appellant-vendee made a representation to Urban Development
Authority but no response was received by her. Appellant then filed
an application for sanction of the building plan before the
Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. The application was
G dismissed by the Corporation on the premise that the proposed
constructions fell on the reserved open space in the Layout. ~
Appellant challenged the order of the Corporation by filing a writ
petition in the High Court, which was dismissed by a Single Judge
of the High Court. Writ Appeal filed thereagainstwas dismissed by
H 12
1
M. NAGA VENKATA LAKSHMI v. VISAKHAPATNAM 13
MUNICIPALCORPN.

r the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence the present appeal. A
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1.Nerther the writ court nor the court of !tppeal dealt
with the question as regards the right of the appellant to be heard in
the matter. If the allegations made in the writ petition were correct, B
then why the fact that the land belonging to vendee had been
earmarked for the purpose of providing an open space to the other
owners of the said layout had not been disclosed to her.
[Para 6) [15-H; 16-A-BJ
c
1.2. On what basis the layout plan had been drawn resulting in
deprivation of a valuable right of the appellant, therefore, was
required to be determined. Furthermore9 ifVisakhapatnam Urban
Development Authority (VUDA) wanted to deprive the appellant
from a valuable right of property, the question which should have
D
been posed was as to whether therefor the authorities should have
---<: acquired the property or not. [Para 7] [16-B-C)
Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Mis. Pure Industrial Cock
& Chem. Ltd & Ors., (2007) 8SCALE110, relied on.
E
1.3. Prima facie, it appears that there is no provision in terms
whereof the appellant could be deprived of her right of property
without payment of any compensation. Hence the impugned
judgments cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly and •
the matter is remitted to the Single Judge of the High Court for
F
consideration of the matter afresh. [Para 9] [16-E-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4344 of
2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2004 of the High Court
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 1222 G
-1 of2004.
G.V.R. Choudary, K. Shivraj Choudhuri and Abhishek Sarkar for
the Appellant.
V. Mohana, P. Rao and Hari Priya for the Respondents. H
:i....._

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by -(

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant herein purchased about 167 sq. yard of vacant land in
plot No. C/1&2, R.S. No. 52(P) situate at Balayya Sastry's layout,
B Sitarnmadhara, Alipuram Extension Ward, Visakhapatnam by reason of
a deed of sale dated 8.07.1982. The said layout was not an approved
one. The Competent Authority to approve the layout plan was the
Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA) created under the
Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short "the
c Act"). A revised plan was prepared in the year 1989. The name oflocality
was changed to Radha Krishna Nagar. Plots belonging to others had been
regularized but the appellant's plot was not. A representation was made
by her to VUDA but she did not receive any response thereto. Appellant
also filed an application for sanction of a building plan before the
D Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. The said application was dismissed
on the premise that the proposed constructions fell on the reserved open
space in the Radha Krishna Nagar Layout. r
3. Questioning the legality of the said purported order, a writ
application was filed by her. The same was dismissed by a learned Single
E
Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by an order dated 22.01.2004
stating:
"The relief prayed for by the petitioner to direct the respondents
to regularize the plot purchased by her in the unapproved layout,
F which is shown as reserved open space in the approved layout,
cannot be granted. The petitioner knowing fully well that the
Balayya Sastri layout is not approved, yet risked her monies to
purchase a plot in the said layout. According to the own admission
I
of the petitioner, she had purchased the plot in the unapproved
G layout kno\vn as Balayya Sastri, under a registered sale deed from
her vendor. When, according to the own admission of the petitioner, ~
she had purchased the plot in the unapproved layout, which was
subsequently transformed into an approved layout known as Radha
Krishna Nagar, it is not open for her to contend that respondent
H no. 1 ought not to have refused permission for construction of
M. NAGA VENKATA LAKSHMI v. VISAKHAPA TNAM 15
MUNICIPALCORPN. [SINHA,J.]
building in the said plot on the ground that the plot purchased by A
the petitioner in the approved layout, is shown as reserved open,
space. It is required to be noted that reserved open space are
nonnally eannarked for providing lung space to the inhabitants of
a colony, and it would not be in the interest of general public to
accord pennission for construction of building therein contrary to , B
the layout. The Apex Court as well as this Court have been
consistently holding that reserved open spaces should be made
use of for the purposes for which they have been eannarked, and
_,L no construction which is destined to defeat the very purpose of
providing lung spaces, should be allowed to be made. Inasmuch c
as in the approved layout, the plot purchased by the petitioner was
shown as reserved open space, respondent no. 1 had refused to
grant pennission to construct a building therein, and no exception
can be taken thereto. Respondent no. 1 has no obligation, and
for that matter, he cannot be directed to grant pennission to the D
petitioner for construction of building in the plot, which admittedly
in the approved layout is shown as reserved open space."
4. A writ appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant has been
dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.
,E
Appellant is, thus, before us.
5. The Act was enacted for the development of urban areas in the
State of Andhra Pradesh according to plan and for matters connected
y therewith and ancillary thereto. Chapter II of the Act provides for
constitution of the Urban Development Authority and their objects. F
Chapter III provides for preparation of Master Plan and Zonal
Development Plan. Chapter IV provides for development of lands
whereas Chapter V provides for acquisition and disposal of land.
6. The legality and/ or validity of the deed of sale executed by G
vendor in favour of the appellant is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute
that no layout plan existed in the area in question where she had
purchased the land. Before making the Zonal Plan and the Master Plan,
the Authority was required to give an opportunity of hearing to the persons
who may be affected thereby. Neither the writ court nor the court of
H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A appeal dealt with the question as regards the right of the appellant to be
heard in the matter. Ifthe allegations made in the writ petition were correct,
we do not know why the fact that her land had been earmarked for the
purpose of providing an open space to the other owners of the said layout
had not been disclosed to her.
B
7. On what basis the layout plan had been drawn resulting in
deprivation of a valuable right of the appellant, therefore, was required
to be determined. Furthermore, if VUDA wanted to deprive the appellant
from a valuable right of property, the question which should have been
C posed was as to whether therefor the authorities should have acquired
the property or not.
8. We may notice that recently a Bench of this Court in Chairman,
Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Mis. Pure Industrial Cock & Chem. Ltd
& Ors., (2007) 8 SCALE 110, held:
D
"58. Property, while ceasing to be a fundamental right would,
however, be given express recognition as a legal right, provisions
being made that no person shall be deprived of his property save
in accordance with law."
E 9. Primafacie, it appears that there is no provision in terms whereof
the appellant could be deprived of her right of property without payment
of any compensation.
10. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgments
F cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly and the matter is
remitted to the learned Single_ Judge of the High Court for consideration
of the matter afresh.
11. Before us, VUDA has not appeared. We, therefore, direct to
place all the relevant records before the High Court. Parties shall be
G entitled to file their additional affidavits and raise all contentions before it
which may be considered on their own merit.
12. The appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned observations.
No costs.
H S.K.S. Appeal disposed of.