A.P. HOUSING BOARD versus ADARSHA WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 133 · Decided: 13-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
A.P. HOUSING BOARD 
v. 
ADARSHA WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANR. 
APRIL 13, 2007 
B 
[C.K. THAKKERANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Housing: 
Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956-Appel/ant Housing Board C 
acquired land for public purpose-Portion of land earmarked for 'public 
park' encroached upon by hutment dwellers-Direction of High Court that 
till such encroachment was removed, Appellant Board cannot make 
construction in the proposed Commercial Zone under the plan-Held: High 
Court erred in issuing such directions, since the Commercial Zone was in D 
accordance with the sanctioned layout-Board had power to construct 
commercial complex as per the sanction granted by authorities-High Court 
was not justified in interfering with the lawful action of the Board. 
Appellant-Housing Board acquired land for public purpose. However a 
portion of the land earmarked for 'park area' was encroached by hutment E 
dwellers. The petitioner-Resident Welfare Association filed PIL before the 
High Court pleading that since the land earmarked for park was not available, 
proposed Commercial Zone under the Development Plan should not be 
permitted to be used for that purpose by the Appellant Board. 
The High Court observed that the Commercial Zone was in accordance F 
with the sanctioned layout but ecology must be given primacy and thereafter 
allowed the writ petition, directing that till encroachment of land earmarked 
for public park was removed, commercial activities cannot be permitted to be 
undertaken at the site as per layout. Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: The High Court committed an error of law in issuing the 
directions, particularly after recording a finding that construction of 
Commercial Zone was in accordance with layout and after obtaining sanction 
from the competent authorities under the Act. When the provisions of the 
133 
G 
H 
134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A Act have been followed and the land which is required to be used as per layout 
has been used strictly in consonance with such layout, it cannot be said that 
by doing so, the Housing Board has committed any illegality. Once the High 
Court had recorded the finding that the land in question was earmarked for 
commercial purpose, it must be held that the Board had power to construct 
B shopping complex as per the requisite sanction granted by the authorities. 
No objection can be taken against such a course and the High Court was not 
justified in interfering with the lawful action of the Board. 
[Paras 6 and 71 (136-B-E) 
~' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6156-6157 of 
c 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2001 of the High Court of 
!!--
Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 18755 and 19215 of 
2001. 
D 
P.S. Naarasimha, A vijeet Kr. Lala and Anil Kumar Tandale for the 
Appellant. 
V. Sridhar Reddy and Abhijit Sengupta for the Respondents. 
\ 
A 
Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kumar Singh, Rahul Shukla and T.V. George for 
E the State. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C.K. THAKKER, J. I. These appeals are filed by the Andhra Pradesh 
Housing Board against the judgment dated October 3, 2001 in Writ Petition 
F Nos. 18755 and 19215 of2001. The above petitions were filed by the petitioners 
Adarsha Welfare Association and Vengal Rao Nagar (Housing Board Colony), 
-
Allottees and Residents Association in Public Interest Litigation (PIL). A writ 
of mandamus was sought against the Housing Board making available open 
space in Vengal Rao Nagar Housing Board Colony at Hyderabad by restraining 
it from making any construction in the 'lung space' area earmarked for 'park' 
G contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956 
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 
2. The facts leading to the present controversy have been set out by 
us extensively in Civil Appeal No. 3942 of 2002 and companion matters 
H 
decided by us today and it is not necessary to repeat them in this case. 
Suffice it to say that the Housing Board had acquired forty-five acres of land 
AP. HOUSING BOARDv. ADARSHA WELFAREASSOCIA TION [C.K. THAKKER, J .] 135 
for public purpose, viz. for construction of dwelling units for its employees A 
__, 
(Vengal Rao Nagar Housing Board Colony). The Housing Board, however, 
cou[d get possession only of forty-three acres of land and the possession of 
land admeasuring two acres could not be obtained because of encroachment 
over the land b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.