ORDER
B.S.A. Swamy, J.
1. As per the directions of this Court dated 14-9-2001, the petitioner-Society filed a revised lay-out without leaving 10% of the total extent of land, for recreation and other amenities. The officials of the HUDA, have agreed to release the lay-out if the petitioner-society is agreeable to the modifications made to the revised plan submitted by the petitioner-society. Whether the petitioner Society agrees or not, this being a mandatory provision, the petitioner-society has no option except to adhere to the rules relating to the lay-out formulated by the HUDA.
2. Secondly the Counsel for the HUDA submits that the revised lay-out submitted by the petitioner-society shall be treated as a fresh layout.
3. Prima facie I am of the opinion that under Section 32 of the Andhra Fradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, the HUDA cannot cancel the permission though there are some short falls or deviations and at the most they can only direct the concerned to rectify them and if they fail to rectify the same, the HUDA is empowered to rectify the same and collect the charges from the Society.
4. Thirdly, the correspondence that has taken place between the petitioner-society and the HUDA cannot lead to the inference that the approval given to the layout in the year 1990 submitted by the petitioner-society stands cancelled on the ground that the Society could not complete the lay-out work within stipulated time. From time to time the HUDA was extending the time and it is only for the first time on 28-1-1993 it rejected the request of the society to register the plots in individual names unless it takes up development works as per the lay-out conditions. Hence, I cannot treat the lay-out submitted by the petitioner-society at the instance of this Court as a fresh lay-out. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. There are thousands and thousands of unapproved lay-outs in the twin cities and the HUDA is inviting these law-breakers to approach it, expressing its willingness to regularize their unauthorized and illegal lay outs, which are not in conformity with the rules. The petitioner-society who obtained the permission for the lay-out way back in the year 1990 and developed the land, of course in deviation of the approved lay-out after paying the prescribed fee cannot be placed in a worse position than those people who developed the land illegally. Nextly, while the law-breakers raised permanent structures on the land, the petitioner-society kept the land in tact and as per the orders of the Court, the Society agreed to rectify the deviations made to the plan and no harm is caused to any one. By raising this objection the HUDA desires to collect some more money. But ours being a welfare State, it cannot view every situation in terms of money, and it should not forget the fact that it is dealing with human beings, and we are in a society which is governed by a rule of law. As pointed supra, the HUDA can either direct the developer to rectify deviations and make up the short falls. If the concerned failed to comply with the deviations, the HUDA can itself rectify the same and collect the charges from the Developer and the Board has no power to cancel the layout. Hence, the question of treating this plan as a fresh plan does not arise.
5. At any rate as the HUDA is very much in need of money and as there is a provision for revalidation of the lay-out, the petitioner-society is directed to pay the required fee for it. The officials of the HUDA, who are physically present in the Court, admitted that the amount payable for revalidation is Rs. 75,000/-. This amount may be paid by the petitioner-society within two weeks and thereafter the HUDA is directed to release the lay-out. It is always open to the HUDA to take penal action if the developers violate any of the rules relating to the lay-out.
6. The Counsel appearing for the HUDA, brought to my notice that at the time when permission was given for the lay-out, rules say that internal roads should be laid with a width of 30 feet, but the rules were amended in the year 1998 and according to the amended rules internal roads should be laid with a width of 40 feet. I have no hesitation to reject this contention for the reason that there is no power to HUDA to cancel the lay-out and on the other hand there is a provision for revalidation of the lay-out, if the developer failed to develop the land within the stipulated time. Once the permit is revalidated, the permit revives from the date on which lay-out is approved.
7. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.