LexMACHAVARAPU SRINIVASA RAO AND ANOTHER versus ANDHRA PRADESH URBAN AREAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 639 MACHAVARAPU SRINIVASA RAO AND ANOTHER v. THE VIJAYAWADA, GUNTUR, TENALI, MANGALAGIRI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 7935 of 2011) SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 [G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] ANDHRA PRADESH URBAN AREAS (DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1975: s. 12 - Change of land use - Site in question earmarked A B c for recreational purpose in the Zonal Development Plan duly approved by the State Government - Grant of permission by Development Authority to respondent-society to construct a D temple at the site in question - HELD: Development Authority erred in granting permission to respondent-society to construct a temple at the site in question - Once the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan is approved by the State Government, no one including the State Government/ Development Authority can use land for any purpose other E than the one specified therein - There is no provision in the Act under which the Development Authority can sanction construction of a building etc. or use of land for a purpose other than the one specified in the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan - The power vested in the Development F Authority to make modification in the development plan is a/so not unlimited - It cannot make important alterations in the character of the plan - Such modification can be made only by the State Govemm(jJnt and that too after following the procedure prescribed u/s. 12(3) - Therefore, Development G Authority could not have entertained the application made by respondent-society and granted permission for construction of temple at the site reseNed for recreational use and that too 639 H 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R. A by ignoring that the same had not been allotted to respondent- society by any public authority. B s.5(1) - Powers and duties of the Development Authority - Discussed. WORDS AND PHRASES: Word 'development' - Meaning of, in the context of s.2(e} of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. Respondent No.1 was constituted under Section 3(1) c of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 to promote and secure the development of different parts of the four towns, namely, Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali and Mangalagiri. In 1978, respondent No.1 acquired 91 acres land at Chenchupet, Tenali and prepared a layout 0 plan for development. As per the approved plan, 10 sites were earmarked for parks. These included an area of 75 cents comprised in Town Survey No.2/3, Block No.1, Ward No.1, Chenchupet. The Master Plan was approved by the State Government. After about 15 years, the State - Government decided that the Master Plans be replaced by a comprehensive Zonal Development Plan. The land in question was shown in the Zonal Development Plan earmarked for recreational purpose. Respondent No.3- society submitted an application to respondent No.1 for F grant of permission to construct Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vari Temple at the site which formed part of Town Survey No.2/3. Respondent No.1 passed resolution for grant of permission to the Residents Welfare Association to construct the Temple. In furtherance of that decision, Vice-Chairman of respondent No.1 issued order dated G 30.3.2010.After about one month and ten days, the Vice Chairman of respondent No.1 issued amended order dated 10.5.2010 in the name of respondent No.3 because . by mistake permission for construction of temple was issued in favour of the Residents Welfare Association, H which had not even submitted application. MACHAVARAPU SRINIVASA RAO v. VIJAYAWADA, GUNTUR, 641 TENALI, MANGALAGIRI URBAN DEV. AUTH. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 made efforts for securing A an order from the State Government for change of land use. The appellants filed a writ petition by way of public interest litigation questioning the decision of respondent No.1 to sanction construction of temple. They pleaded that the Zonal Development Plan prepared by respondent B No.1 and approved by the State Government was statutory in character and land covered by the Zonal Development Plan could not be used for a purpose other than the one specified in the Plan and respondent No.1 did not have the jurisdiction to sanction construction of c temple at the site of which land use was shown as recreational (park). In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, it was pleaded that mere allotment of land for construction of templ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.