ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. These two writ petitions arise under similar factual and legal background. The array of respondents is same in both the writ petitions. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.
2. Petitioners in WP. No. 25474 of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the '1st writ petition') are the owners of Ac. 17-29 guntas of land in Sy.Nos. 79/A, 79/A2 and 80/A of Thimmapur Village, Kothur Mandal, Mehboobnagar District. Petitioner in W.P. No. 25476 of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd 'writ petition') is a partnership concern and it owns land in Sy.Nos. 64 to 71, partly in some and fully in others. Petitioners in both the writ petitions intended to develop the lands for non-agricultural purpose. They submitted applications to the District Collector, Mehboobnagar District, the 3rd respondent herein, seeking permission to convert the land to non-agricultural purpose. They also applied to the Gram Panchayat, Kothur, for sanction of layout.
3. The Gram Sabha of Kothur Gram Panchayat, at its meeting held on 4-2-2003, resolved to approve the proposal. The District Revenue Officer, Mehboobnagar, the 4th respondent, accorded permission, through its proceedings dated 13-2-2003, to put the lands to non-agricultural use. In view of these developments, the Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, addressed letters dated 17-2-2003 to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent, seeking approval of the layouts. When prompt action was not taken thereon, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos. 17421 and 17155 of 2003 respectively. The writ petitions were disposed of through orders dated 26-9-2003, directing the respondents therein to pass appropriate orders within the stipulated time.
4. The 1 st respondent considered the applications of the petitioners and rejected them through separate proceedings dated 17-11-2003. The main ground of rejections of the applications is that the lands covered by the proposed layouts are within the distance of 1 k.m., from LPG Bottling Plant of Indian Oil Corporation (for short 'the LPG Plant'). In the case of the 1st writ petition, an additional ground of rejection is that the site under reference falls in 'Industrial Use Zone' as per the 'Indicative Land Use Plan of Mandal Head Quarter'. As regards the petitioner in the 2nd writ petition, two more grounds are stated, viz., the layout does not have access through an established Gram Panchayat road and that part of the land on the western side has already been sub-divided unauthorisedly into plots and roads, without obtaining any layout approval. In both the proceedings, extensive reference was made to the correspondence that ensued among various authorities, such as, A.P. Pollution Control Board, Indian Oil Corporation, District Collector, etc. These orders of rejection are challenged in these writ petitions.
5. The petitioners contend that the grounds on which their applications were rejected cannot be sustained in law. According to them, none of the grounds fit into the criteria laid down under the A.P. Town Planning Act (for short 'the Act') and the rules made thereunder, and thereby the applications stood rejected on extraneous reasons and considerations.
6. The matter underwent several adjournments and the respective Counsel for the parties have submitted extensive arguments based on the basis of instructions received by them.
7. Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, submits that sanction of layout is governed by the provisions of the Act and the applications seeking layout have to be considered only on the basis of the criteria stipulated therein. He submits that since the petitioners did not propose to establish an industry, the 1st respondent ought not to have ascertained the views of A.P. Pollution Control Board, the 2nd respondent. He asserts that whatever may have been the justification in seeking such views; the 2nd respondent is not assigned any role in the matter of residential locations. It is also his contention that even the so-called guidelines issued by the 2nd respondent, based on which the applications of the petitioners were rejected, have no statutory basis or force.
8. Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration submits that safely of the inmates of the proposed constructions in the layout cannot be treated as an extraneous consideration. He submits that the 2nd respondent has insisted that a minimum distance of 1 k.m., shall be maintained from the LPG Plant existing at the locality and it was in that context that the applications were rejected. He attempts to sustain the other grounds stated in the impugned orders.
9. Sri S.V. Bhat, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, submits that his client had issued general guidelines (hereinafter referred to as 'the guidelines') way back on 21-1-1997; in the matter of establishment of different kinds of industries and that one of the conditions in relation to the LPG Plant was maintenance of distance of 1 k.m., from residential locality. He submits that such a measure was indicated only to ensure the safety in and around the plant.
10. The petitioners submitted their applications for sanction of layout in respect of the lands referred to above, with a view to develop them into residential locality. The 3rd respondent has accorded its permission to convert the lands for non-agricultural purpose. The Gram Panchayat gave its consent. Being the competent authority under the Act, the approval of the 1st respondent is needed for such layout. The Panchayat Secretary of the village forwarded the applications to the 1st respondent together with necessary remarks and enclosures. The letter refers to the resolution of the Gram Sabha, the approval by the District Collector, the 2nd respondent, and the recommendation of the District Panchayat Officer, Mehboobnagar.
11. The 1st respondent got inspected the lands through an Assistant Director. Since the lands were located nearby the LPG Plant, the 1st respondent addressed letters to the 2nd respondent as well as the Manager of the LPG Plant. The Plant Manager appears to have replied through its letter dated 2-8-2003 stating that it is desirable to obtain No Objection Certificates for development of the neighbouring land into residential land from the Chief Controller of Explosives, Pollution Control Board and Director of Factories. The 2nd respondent replied through its letter dated 5-10-2003. This reply refers to the views expressed by the Technical Committee at its meeting held on 14-10-2003. The gist of the same is referred to in the impugned orders as under:
'From the above letter of APPCB, it is clear that the layout land falls within the 'No Development Zone' around LPG bottling and filling plant and giving due consideration for safety of human life; it is not desirable to approve any layout for house construction purpose within 1 k.m., radius of the Gas Plant as informed by the District Collector.'
The expression 'No Development Zone' is not traceable to any statute or statutory proceedings. Obviously, it is coined in the context of the guidelines issued by the 2nd respondent dated 21-1-1997 addressed to the Commissioner of Industries. This letter contained what are described as 'Siting Guidelines' for various kinds of industries including the LPG Plant. In relation to the LPG Plant, the following four guidelines were stipulated:--
'(a) 100 mts away from any road;
(b) Around 1 km away from human habitation;
(c) 20 mts greenbelt all-round the plant. To fulfil this condition minimum 5 acres of land is required. (As per OISD 189 small scale bottling plants typical layout is 125 m x 95m = 11875 sq.m To develop 20 mt. Greenbelt all-round, total area required is 19575 sq.m. i.e., around 5.0 acres.
(d) On site emergency plan to be prepared before the activity is commenced i.e., before going into trial production.'
It is in a passive reference to guide line (b) that Respondents, 1 and 2 have treated the belt of 1 k.m., around the LPG Plant as 'no development zone'. To a pointed query, as to whether there existed anything like 'no development zone' under any pollution related enactments, there did not emerge any positive reply. Even under the Act, there is no reference to ' no development zone'.
12. The 2nd respondent accorded its consent for establishment of the LPG Plant through its proceedings dated 2-12-1997. It needs to be seen as to what amount of sanctity it has attached to its guidelines dated 21-1-1997 while giving the consent. It incorporated conditions in Schedule-A and Schedule-B. Schedule-A is totally silent about the distance from the residential localities. Condition No. 2 in Schedule-B reads as under:
'The location of bullets shall be installed such that a distance of 500 mts from centre of NH and centre of bullets and 100 mts from the centre of village road and centre of bullets shall be maintained.'
It is, therefore, evident that apart from there not being any statutory force or legal sanctity for the norm of 1 k.m., contained in the guidelines, the 2nd respondent itself did not enforce the same, while giving consent for establishment of the LPG Plant.
13. On the basis of a news item published in local dailies, the 3rd respondent had directed the concerned authorities to stop any development of the area or registration of the plots around the LPG Plant. Correspondence ensued thereafter. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothur, addressed letter dated 3-5-2003 to the District Collector. It reads as under :
'I invite kind attention to the reference cited and submit herewith the map prepared by the Mandal Surveyor duly showing the distances proposed layout lands from the IOC storage point.
It is to submit that as per map prepared the distance IOC storage point to proposed lands are from 230 to 500 meters.
Further it is submitted that the IOC was established within 110 meters from residential area i.e., Toopra tanda of RR district located on East side of the IOC plant, and also 132 KV sub-station on the South West corner, whereas the proposed layout lands are existing beyond 200 meters.'
From this, it is evident that even if the guidelines are to be treated as legally valid, the facts of the case do not attract them.
14. A citizen is entitled to put the property held by him to any use of his choice. Any restrictions placed on such use shall be through a statute enacted by a competent legislature. Interference with the right to use the property otherwise than through statutory measures impinges upon the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. Such rights may have various facets of different degrees ranging from equality to freedom.
15. It is not as if there are no enactments to regulate the use of the land for orderly and proper development. In cases of towns, master plans are prepared dividing the areas into different zones, such as, residential, commercial, industrial, etc. Before such plans are prepared, enormous exercise is undertaken and objections are invited from the affected persons. It is after such statutory exercise that a master plan comes to be published. The Act provides for consideration of objections even after publication of master plan. Once such a master plan assumes finality, the persons owning the properties in the area covered by the plan are required to conform to the land use. Even while sanctioning layouts, the concerned authorities are entitled to insist upon leaving open areas, recreation places, etc., which in turn, shall conform to the provisions of the statute or the rules and notifications issued thereunder.
16. Law does not contemplate the invocation of ad hoc norms and indiscriminate yardsticks in the matter of consideration of applications seeking layouts. If such things are permitted, the entire legal frame takes a back seat and applications come to be considered or rejected just at the whims and fancies of the concerned authorities. This is impermissible in a country governed by rule of law.
17. Even if it is assumed that the distance of 1 k.m., stipulated for establishment of a LPG Plant has any legal sanctity, such a norm becomes relevant and enforceable from the point of view and in the context of a person seeking permission to establish the LPG Plant. Unless there is corresponding notification under the relevant statute prohibiting the use of the land up to a radius of 1 k.m., around the LPG Plant, the neighbouring landowners cannot be prevented from developing their lands. Otherwise it amounts to conferring a bundle of rights upon the owner of the LPG Plant vis-a-vis the neighbouring lands, to the detriment of the owners. For the benefit of an industry, the owners of the neighbouring lands cannot be burdened in the form of deprivation of their right to develop their property according to their wishes. On account of such restrictions, the legal owner becomes a ceremonial head, whereas the actual beneficiary becomes the owner of the LPG Plant.
18. At any rate, the condition incorporated by the 2nd respondent while giving its consent to the Indian Oil Corporation for establishing a LPG Plant read in the context of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, discloses that the significance of distance of 1 k.m., from the LPG Plant has paled into irrelevance.
19. The impugned orders referred to letter dated 30-11-2002 (mentioned as 13-11-2002) addressed by the 2nd respondent. In this letter, the 2nd respondent requested the 1st respondent not to approve any layout plans within the radius of 1 km., from the LPG Plant. This, in turn, refers to guidelines issued by the 2nd respondent in the letter dated 21-1-1997. It has already been held that the guidelines contained in the letter dated 21-1-1997 have no legal or statutory force. Further, the 3rd respondent is not assigned any role, either direct or indirect, in the matter of consideration of applications for grant of layout. It is the sole prerogative of the Gram Panchayat and the first respondent. It also needs to be observed that it was the 3rd respondent who accorded permission for conversion of the land from agriculture to other uses. Hence, this Court finds that the letter dated 30-11-2002 addressed by the 2nd respondent does not have any legal basis and cannot constitute any basis for consideration of the plan of the petitioners.
20. In one of its orders, the 1st respondent has referred to 'indicative Land Use Plan of Mandal Head Quarter'. Even this has not statutory or legal strength, or support. It is almost similar to the 'no development zone' referred to above. Not a single condition referable to the parameters under the Act and the Rules made thereunder are referred to in the impugned orders.
21. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis for the impugned orders. They are accordingly set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders without taking into account any norms or guidelines issued by the Pollution Control Board or any other authority, but strictly in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Town Planning Act and the Rules made thereunder, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.