M. NAGA VENKATA LAKSHMI versus VISAKHAPA TNAM MUNICIPAL CORPN. AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 12 · Decided: 18-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M. NAGA VENKATA LAKSHMI 
-< 
v. 
VISAKHAPA TNAM MUNICIPAL CORPN. AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND U.S. BEDI, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act: 
1,_ 
c 
Right of property-Sale-purchase of land/plot-Application for 
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 of High Court-Writ 
appeal dismissed by Division Bench of the High Court-On appeal, 
D Held: Authority did not disclose to vendee about the fact of earmarking 
of the plot in question for the purpose of providing an open space to 
other land-owners-Prima facie, there is no provision in terms whereof 
~ 
the vendee could be deprived of her right of property without payment 
of any compensation-Hence, the impugned judgment set aside and 
E the matter remitted to Single Judge of the High Court/or consideration 
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 VENKA TA LAKSHMI v. VISAKHAPA TNAM 
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. 
1.3. Prima facie, it appears that there is no provision in terms E 
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.