Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 42 (AP)

K. Vivek Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2011-01-25

B.PRAKASH RAO

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. A Division Bench consisting of Honourable the Chief Justice and Honourable Sri Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar referred the following points for decision under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent. (1) Whether the challenge to Memo No.14283/F2/2009-2, dated 05-10-2009 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh is maintainable in the context of the pleadings in the writ petitions. (2) Whether the said Memo was issued by the Government in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 679 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. (3) Whether the relaxation accorded under the said Memo in terms of Rule 7.1(xiv) of the Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006 is legal and valid. (4) Whether the sub-division of the premises bearing Door No.2-2-20/K/9, Durga Bai Deshmukh Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, was legal and valid. (5) What is the scope of Rule 7.2(vii) of the Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006 and what are its implication vis-a vis the buildings permits of respondents 4 and 5? (6) Whether the distances stipulated in Table-V of the Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006 are applicable to the building permits of respondents 4 and 5 by virtue of Rule 7.1 (xv). (7) Whether the building permits of respondents 4 and 5 are legal and valid. 2. Before considering the points, it is appropriate to state the facts of the case. 3. The layout plan submitted by Sri Syed Azam, the owner of land in Sy. No.48/1, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, in the year 1963 was approved as LP No. 42/63. Plot No.7 in Block-K of this lay out admeasuring 1000 sq.mtrs, (70’x 154’) abutting 14.63 metre road was released by Sri Syed Azam to Dr. Syed Omer. He has constructed a building therein and it was assigned D. No. 2-2-20/K/9, Durgabai Deshmukh Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. Subsequently an extent of 500 sq. meters (35’ x 154’) lying to the southern portion of this premises was earmarked for special reservation (high school use) zone in the notified Zonal Development Plan of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority of Hyderabad. Dr. Syed Omer sold under a registered sale deed dated 01-08-2005 an extent of 500 sq. metres (35’ x 154’) situated on the northern portion of the premises No.2-2-20/K/9 was to Ms. Dr. Syed Omer sold under a registered sale deed dated 01-08-2005 an extent of 500 sq. metres (35’ x 154’) situated on the northern portion of the premises No.2-2-20/K/9 was to Ms. Leena Bollapragada, respondent No.5., with boundaries as below: NORTH- House No.2-2-20/1/C&D (Vijaya Sri Sai Avenue), SOUTH – Portion of House No.2-2-20/K/9 EAST- Land belong to Sri Amirulla Khan, WEST- 60’ Feet Wide Road 4. He has also sold the remaining 500 sq. metres (35’ x 154’) situated on the southern portion of the premises No. 2-2-20/K/9 to Raja Rajeswari Builders, the 4th respondent herein, under a registered sale deed dated 1-8-2005 with boundaries as below: NORTH – Portion of House No. 2-2-20/K/9, SOUTH- Land belongs to Sri Parvathi Constructions, EAST-Land belongs to Sri Amirullah Khan, WEST- 60 Feet Wide Road 5. The 4th respondent submitted an application to the Government for change of land use of the 500 sq. metres from special reservation (high school) to residential use. The Government published the draft variation vide Gazette No.226, Part I, dt. 19-4-2007 calling for objections. As no objections were received from any quarter, the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 539, MA & UD Department, dated 27-7-2007 confirmed the draft variation in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 and the land use was changed to residential use. The 4th respondent under a registered sale deed dated 22-4-2009 purchased an extent of 5.36 sq. metres (4 1/2” x 154’) lying to the south from the 5th respondent. Thus the 4th respondent became the owner of 505.36 sq. metres (35 1/2 x 154’). 6. Respondent No.5 submitted application dated 6-7-2009 to the Municipal Corporation Circle office as per norms prescribed by corporation taking into consideration of size of plot and height of the building for permission to construct a residential building consisting of stilt for parking and four upper floors leaving the open spaces in accordance with Rule 7.1(xiv) of the Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006, as it is a narrow plot of the dimension 34’ ½” x 154feet. After duly collecting the subdivision charges along with other necessary charges, building permit No.4/2 was released to the 5th respondent on 10-08-2009. 7. The 4th respondent submitted the building application dated 9-6-2009 to the Municipal Corporation Head Office as competent authority taking into consideration the Plot area above 500 Sq. Mtrs. After duly collecting the subdivision charges along with other necessary charges, building permit No.4/2 was released to the 5th respondent on 10-08-2009. 7. The 4th respondent submitted the building application dated 9-6-2009 to the Municipal Corporation Head Office as competent authority taking into consideration the Plot area above 500 Sq. Mtrs. And the height of the building for constructing a residential building consisting of stilt for parking and five upper floors leaving the requisite open spaces as per Rule 7.1 (xiv) of the Revised Building Rules as the land purchased by it is a narrow plot with the dimensions 35’1/2” x 154 feet. The application of the 4th respondent was considered by the Building Committee of the Corporation on 10-7-2009. The Building Committee advised to maintain 2.5 metres set back instead of 1M on the sides and by letter dated 3-8-2009 it was communicated to Respondent No.4. As this was contrary to the said Rule 7.1(xiv), the 4th respondent submitted a representation dated 17-8-2009 to the Government against it and the 4th respondent to the same effect submitted letters dated 17-8-2009 of Sri Anjan Kumar Yadav, Member of Parliament and 18-8-2009 of Sri Danam Nagender, Minister. By Memo dated 25-8-2009 the Government sent copies of the said representations to the Commissioner and Special Officer, GHMC, to submit a report to the Government for taking further action in the matter. By a reply letter dated 2-9-2009 the Commissioner sent the report stating that 1 metre side set backs provided by the 4th respondent is as per Rule No. 7.1 (xiv) and satisfies the Rule and the short fall has to be compensated in the front and rear set backs and requested the Government to take further necessary action in the matter. As stated in counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.1 in W.P. 1259 “The said recommendations made by the building committee are of Advisory nature only and the same are not Mandatory.” Thereafter by Memo dated 5-10-2009 the Government requested the Commissioner to comply with the provisions of Rule 7.1 (xiv). Consequently, the Commissioner once again placed the application of the 4th respondent before the Building Committee and the Building Committee in its meeting on 22-11-2009 approved the plan and the Commissioner after collecting the subdivision charges and other charges approved the plan as submitted and granted the building permit No.6/72. Dated 3-12-2009 to Respondent No.4. 8. Consequently, the Commissioner once again placed the application of the 4th respondent before the Building Committee and the Building Committee in its meeting on 22-11-2009 approved the plan and the Commissioner after collecting the subdivision charges and other charges approved the plan as submitted and granted the building permit No.6/72. Dated 3-12-2009 to Respondent No.4. 8. After respondent Nos.4 and 5 commenced the constructions in accordance with the sanctioned plans, these writ petitions were filed from time to time. The prayer in WP No. 17/2010 is as follows:- “To issue an appropriate writ, order to direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, (i) Declaring that Rule 7.1 (xiv) of Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006” as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Arts.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and ultra vires of the ruling making power of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. (ii) Declaring the Building Permit Nos. 6/72 dt. 3/12/09 and 4/2 dt. 10/8/09 of respondent-2 granted in the name of Respondents 4 and 5 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Arts.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (iii) G.O. Ms. No. 539, dt: 27/7/2007 of the Respondent-1 be set aside”. The prayer in WP No. 1259/2010 is as under:- “To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus. (i) declaring that Rule 7.1(xiv) of Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006” as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and ultra vires of the rule making power of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 and A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. (ii) Declaring the Building Permit Nos. 6/72 dt. 3/12/09 and 4/2 dt. 10/8/09 of respondent-2 granted in the name of Respondents 4 and 5 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Arts.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (iii) G.O.Ms. No. 539, dt. 27/7/2007 of the Respondent-1 be set aside”. The prayer in WP No.1677/2010 is as under:- “To issue an appropriate writ or order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, (i) declaring that the Rule 7.1(xiv) of Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006” as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Arts. (iii) G.O.Ms. No. 539, dt. 27/7/2007 of the Respondent-1 be set aside”. The prayer in WP No.1677/2010 is as under:- “To issue an appropriate writ or order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, (i) declaring that the Rule 7.1(xiv) of Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006” as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and ultra vires of the rule making power under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 and A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. (ii) declaring the Building Permit Nos.6/72 dt. 3/12/09 and 4/2 dt. 10-8-09 of respondent2 granted in the name of Respondents 4 and 5 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Arts.14 and 21 if the Constitution of India. (iii)G.O.Ms. No.539, dt: 27/7/2007 of the Respondent-1 be set aside”. The prayer in WP No.6123/2010 is as follows: “To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ Mandamus, (i) declaring that the impugned Rule 7.1(xiv) of Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006 and consequential actions of building permissions to Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in respect of premises bearing NO.2-2-20/K/9, D.D. Colony, Hyderabad, as arbitrary, illegal, void, inoperative and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Sub-division of premises No. 2-2-20/K/9, DD Colony, Hyderabad, into two plots and granting two multistoried building blocks vide Permit Nos.6/72 dt: 3/12/2009 and 4/2, dt. 10-8-2009 in favour of respondents 4 & 5 as arbitraty, illegal and violative of provisions of GHMC Act, 1955”; 9. The Division Bench upheld the validity of the impugned Rule 7.1(xiv) and also G.O.Ms. No. 539, dated 27-7-2007 changing the land use. However, as there was difference of opinion on the validity of the building permits granted to Respondents 4 and 5, the matter was referred to me for decision on the seven points. 10. I have heard Sri. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, Senior Advocate, who appeared as a party-in-person in WP No. 1677/2010 and also as Senior Counsel in WP No.1259/2010, in W.P. No. 17/2010, Sri. B. Venkat Rama Rao, Counsel for the writ Petitioner in WP No. 6123/2010; the learned Advocate General for the 1st respondent-MA & UD-State; Sri C. Damodar Reddy, Standing Counsel for GHMC for Respondents 2 and 3; Sri E. Manohar, Senior Counsel for the 4th Respondent and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, Counsel for the 5th respondent and perused the records. B. Venkat Rama Rao, Counsel for the writ Petitioner in WP No. 6123/2010; the learned Advocate General for the 1st respondent-MA & UD-State; Sri C. Damodar Reddy, Standing Counsel for GHMC for Respondents 2 and 3; Sri E. Manohar, Senior Counsel for the 4th Respondent and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, Counsel for the 5th respondent and perused the records. 11. Point No.1: Whether the challenge to Memo No. 14283/F2/2009-2, dated 5-10-2009 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh is maintainable in the context of pleadings in the writ petitions? 12. There is no prayer in any of the four writ petitions to set aside the Memo dated 5-10-2009 of the Government. In paragraph 8 of the affidavits filed in support of W.P. Nos. 17/2001, 1259/2010 and 1677/2010 the said Memo was dealt with as under: “ It is submitted, as against the decision of the Building Committee, the respondent Builder filed representation dated 17-8-09 requesting the Honourable Minister for Municipal Administration, Government of AP for intervention and favourable orders so as to grant permission with one metre side setbacks. It appears, at the instance of Respondent-4 Builder, the Honourable Member of Parliament and Honourable Minister for Health and Family Welfare addressed letters to the concerned Minister to pass favourable orders. Pursuant to the same, the Government called for a report from the Respondent-2. The office of the Respondent-2 submitted a detailed report dt: 2-9-29 recording the decision taken in the Building Committee meeting. The Government has issued as memo dt. 5-10-2009 for taking further action for releasing of the permission in favour of the Builder in terms of the impugned rule without considering the report or decision taken by the Building Committee. It evidently revels, that Respondent-1 issued Memo under the influence and pressure from the Ministers, without recording any reasons. It is submitted, the representation of the Builder and consequent memo dated 5-10-2009 are not traceable to any provisions of law. The said Memo is without application of mind and the same is arbitrary, ultra vires and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India.” 13. It is submitted, the representation of the Builder and consequent memo dated 5-10-2009 are not traceable to any provisions of law. The said Memo is without application of mind and the same is arbitrary, ultra vires and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India.” 13. Sri Ramakrishna Reddy contended that the Government passed the order mechanically at the behest of the Member of Parliament and the Minister and the Memo did not state the provision under which the Government exercised the power and even if the Government has got the power, the order being non-speaking and bereft of reasons, it is null and void and as such the consequential action taken by the Commissioner and granting the building permit to 4th respondent is also illegal and liable to be set aside. I see no merit in this contention. The Government has the necessary power and jurisdiction to issue the Memo in exercise of the powers of revision conferred on the Government under Sec.679 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. The Memo need not recite the source of the power. The order was not passed at the behest of the Member of Parliament and the Minister. The allegation that they addressed letters to the concerned Minister to pas favorable orders is baseless and incorrect. A reading of the letter dated 17-8-2009 of the Member of Parliament would show that the plot being of the dimensions of 35 x 154 feet, being a narrow plot, attract Rule 7.1(xiv) and hence the request of the applicant may be considered for having side set backs of 1 metre, 6 metres in from and 6.5 rear set back as provided under the Rule and sanction the plan. The Minister Sri D. Nagender, through his letter dated 18-8-2009 forwarding the representation received from the 4th respondent along with the copy of the letter of the Member of Parliament stated that the 4th respondent in his representation is stating that he has submitted as plan for the construction of flats in Bagh Amberpet and keeping in view the size of the plot, being a narrow plot, he is claiming the benefit under Rule 7.1 (xiv) and requested the Honourable Minister for Municipal Administration to look into the matter and do justice as per the said Rule. From these letters it cannot be presumed that any pressure was brought on the Government to issue the Memo. From these letters it cannot be presumed that any pressure was brought on the Government to issue the Memo. The Government forwarded the representation of the 4th respondent along with the copies of the said letters to the Commissioner for report. The Commissioner sent his report stating that the plan submitted by the 4th respondent was in accordance with the said Rule. Thereafter the Government passed the order requesting the Commissioner to comply with the provisions of Rule 7.1(xiv). The Memo reads as under:- “The attention of the Commissioner & Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, is invited to the references cited. He is requested to comply with the provisions of 7.1(xiv) of Revised Common Building rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 86 MA & UD(M1) Dept., dated 3-3-2006 for narrow plots in which the setbacks on sides may be compensated in front and rear setbacks so as to ensure that the overall aggregate setbacks are maintained in the site, subject to maintaining a minimum of 1m on each side, for according permission in this case.” 14. A reading of this order would show that it is a reasoned one and the Government has not committed any illegality and the order has only reiterated the rule position and requested to comply, which stands translated into action by the Commissioner. The petitioners in the three writ petitions having filed copies of the minutes of the meeting of the Building Committee and the consequential order of the Commissioner, the representation submitted by the 4th respondent to the Government and the letters of the Member of Parliament and the Minister, the order of the Government calling for the report from the Commissioner, the report of the Commissioner to the Government and the Memo dated 5-10-2009, as exhibits, could not have raised the said contention contrary to the record. The pleadings in paragraph 8 are not based on the said material and they are only the ipse-dixit of the petitioners. Hence I hold that challenge to the Memo is not maintainable in the context of the pleadings in para 8 of the writ petition. 15. Point No.2: Whether the said Memo was issued by the Government in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 679 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955? 16. Hence I hold that challenge to the Memo is not maintainable in the context of the pleadings in para 8 of the writ petition. 15. Point No.2: Whether the said Memo was issued by the Government in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 679 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955? 16. I hold that the Memo dated 5-10-2009 was issued by the Government in the exercise of the revisional power under Sec.679 of the H.M.C. Act 1955. The learned Counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the vesting of powers of Revision in the Government. Section 679(1) reads as under:- 679. Powers of revision:- (1) The Government may at any time for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, propriety or regularity of any proceeding of or order passed by the Commissioner or any Officer subordinate to him call for and examine the record and pass such orders with reference thereto as it thinks fit.” 17. Point 3: Whether the relaxation accorded under the said Memo in terms of Rule 7.1(xiv) of the Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006 is legal and valid? 18. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned Rule is in the nature of relaxation or exemption and hence such a power cannot be exercised without justifiable reason. The assumption that under this Rule the authorities would be granting relaxation or exemption of the requirements of side open spaces is not correct. The impugned Rule applies to a narrow plot and permits lesser side open spaces. The Corporation is duty bound to grant the building permit if the plot is a narrow plot and the applicant satisfies the requirements laid down in Rule 7.1(xiv) As the Commissioner did not act as per this Rule, the Government requested him to do so. Neither the Government nor the Commissioner/Building Committee has not relaxed any Rule or granted any exemption. On the assumption that the Memo granted relaxation or exemption, Sri Ramakrishna Reddy placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in consumer Action Group and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in Consumer Action Group v. State of Tamilnadu (1) (2000) 7 SCC 425 and contended that granting of relaxation of the side open spaces would seriously affect the rights of the neighbours and hence the Memo is liable to be set aside. I find no merit in this argument. Reliance placed on the said decision of the Honourable Supreme Court is wholly misplaced. The Supreme Court was not dealing with a case of the present nature. In the said case the Government of Tamil Nadu in exercise of the powers of exemption vested in the Government under Sec. 113 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 issued 62 G.Os. during the period from 10-7-1987 to 29-1-1988 exempting large number of buildings in total disregard and in contravention of the provisions of the Act without assigning any reasons, the requirement of front and side set backs, parking requirements, provision for standby generator, transformer room, FSI, height of building etc. The petitioner therein filed a writ petition under Articles 32 of the Constitution of India in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of Sec. 113. The Supreme Court while upholding Sec. 113 set aside the 62 G.Os. on the ground that they were passed without application of mind and giving a total goby to the Rules. But in the instant case, the Government in issuing the Memo did not exercise any power of relaxation or exemption and did not relax any Rules. As noticed above, the Memo was issued in terms of the applicable Rule and hence it is legal and valid. There is no provision in the HMC Act, 1955 conferring powers of exemption or relaxation on the Government. 19. Point 4: Whether the sub-division of the premises bearing Door No. 2-2-2-/K/9, Durga Bai Deshmukh Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, was legal and valid? 20. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules or Bye-laws which prohibits the division of a building premises. In the present case the owner of the promises has sold under two registered sale deeds 500 sq. metres each with defined boundaries to respondent Nos.4 and 5. Thereafter respondent No.5 sold from out of her land of 500 sq. metres an extent of 5.36 sq. metres to respondent No.4 under a registered sale deed dated 22-4-2009. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners contended that the owner of the premises could not have sold the same to respondents 4 and 5 without giving written notice to the Commissioner and obtaining the prior permission of the Commissioner. metres an extent of 5.36 sq. metres to respondent No.4 under a registered sale deed dated 22-4-2009. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners contended that the owner of the premises could not have sold the same to respondents 4 and 5 without giving written notice to the Commissioner and obtaining the prior permission of the Commissioner. In support of the contention the learned counsel relied upon Sec. 388(b) of the HMC Act, 1955 and Bye-law No. 17.12 of the Building Bye-laws, 1981; Conditions 4 and 10 of the Layout Conditions of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Layout) Rules, 1965 and Layout and Land Subdivision Regulations 2008. The Corporation in its counter affidavit stated that since the plot area was not sub-divided in terms of Sec. 388, the corporation has insisted for the payment of sub-division charges when respondents 4 and 5 applied for building permission and that it was paid; that sub-division permission is required for securing the building permission and that after collecting the sub-division charges, building permits were released to Respondents 4 and 5. This stand was reiterated before me by the learned counsel for Respondents 2 and 3. However, the learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 have submitted that Sec. 388(b) has no application to the case and that the sales effected to respondents 4 and 5 are not hit by the said Section or Bye-laws or Rules and that Sec. 388 applies only to preparation of layout by the owner and that in any view of the matter as the premises per force of law was already subdivided, when 500 sq. metres purchased by the 4th respondent was earmarked for special reservation (High School) use zone in the notified Zonal Development Plan of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, which is evident from G.O. Ms. No.539, MA & UD (II) Department, dated 27-7-2007, there was no need or necessity for Dr. Syed Omer to seek permission under Sec.388(b), Bye-laws or Rules once again. They have further contended that the Bye-laws and Rules referred to have no application to the facts of this case. No.539, MA & UD (II) Department, dated 27-7-2007, there was no need or necessity for Dr. Syed Omer to seek permission under Sec.388(b), Bye-laws or Rules once again. They have further contended that the Bye-laws and Rules referred to have no application to the facts of this case. They have also contended that when once subdivision charges were collected by the Corporation before releasing the building permits to respondents 4 and 5, the said requirement was satisfied and that they being bonafide purchasers for value individually by virtue of separate sale deeds from the original owner and the said sale deeds are neither challenged nor declared invalid by the Civil Court and there is no dispute inter se the said respondents over the identification measurement and sub division of their individual plots and it is for the original owner, who is not impleaded by the petitioners as a party, cannot be penalized for the alleged default of their vendor and in any case the alleged non-compliance would not disable the Commissioner from granting the building permission and that Sec. 388(b) cannot control the power of the Commissioner to grant building permission under Sec. 428. They have also contended that the submission of the petitioners that prior permission of the Commissioner should be obtained by the owner of the premises is not the requirement of Sec. 388(b). The learned counsel for Respondents 4 and 5 have also brought to my notice the undisputed facts stated in the counter affidavits of the respondents 4 and 5 that the premises in Plot No.1 of the approved layout, which is adjacent to the premises in Plot No.7 in issue, is of total extent of 1446.32 sq. metres. The owner of this plot has sold an extent of 650sq. metres to Vijayasree Sai Apartments and another extent of 525.02 sq. yards to Sri Ramakrishna Reddy, who is the father of the petitioner in WP No. 17/2010 and the petitioner in WP No. 1677/2010 and retained the balance extent. It is not their case that their owner obtained permission of the Commissioner under Sec. 388(b) prior to the sales in their favour and hence it is not open to raise the contention. 21. I see no merit in the contention of the petitioners. I agree with the submissions made on behalf of the Corporation as well as Respondents 4 and 5. A reading of Secs. 21. I see no merit in the contention of the petitioners. I agree with the submissions made on behalf of the Corporation as well as Respondents 4 and 5. A reading of Secs. 388, 389, 391 and 392 of the Act would make it clear that Sec. 388(b) is applicable to making of layout scheme and not to a case where the owner of the premises in an approved layout sells the premises to different persons. 22. Bye-law 17/12 of the Municipal Corporation Building Bye-laws, 1981 will not come to the aid of the petitioners. This bye-law reads: “17.12 In the case of plots, proposed to be sub-divided the sanction of the Authority for such sub-division shall be obtained. No building will be permitted on such plots unless earlier sanction of the Authority is obtained for sub-division. The mere fact that there is already a katcha approach giving access to the existing building in that compound cannot be taken cognizance of and new structure permitted to abut on to such an unrecognized approach.” 23. Plot is defined by Byelaw 2 as meaning a parcel/piece of land enclosed by definite boundaries. In the instant case in Plot 7 purchased by Dr. Syed Omer a building was constructed by him to which the Municipal Corporation assigned premises No. 2-2-20/K/9. Thus the application of byelaw No.17.12 is doubtful to this building premises. Even otherwise, as sub-division charges were collected before granting building permission, it is deemed that sanction of the authority was obtained as provided in Byelaw 17.12 I am of the view that the Layout Rules 1965 and Layout Regulations, 2008 have no application to this premises, as the layout was approved in 1963 and the Rules govern the preparation of and granting permission for layouts. Layout Condition 10 of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Layout Rules, 1965 states that the boundaries and dimensions of sites shall not be altered except with the previous approval of the Commissioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that the owner of the land whose layout was approved in 1963 has altered the boundaries and dimensions of the site. Excepting filing a copy of the approved layout plan, the petitioners have not filed the conditions thereof. Similarly, the Layout and Land Sub-division Regulations, 2008 which is similar to Byelaw No. 17.12 also have no application to the case. Excepting filing a copy of the approved layout plan, the petitioners have not filed the conditions thereof. Similarly, the Layout and Land Sub-division Regulations, 2008 which is similar to Byelaw No. 17.12 also have no application to the case. (Further it is a matter between the Corporation and Dr. Syed Omer, with which the writ petitioners have no concern). 24. For the foregoing, I hold that the sub-division of the premises is legal and valid. 25. Point 5: What is the scope of Rule 7.2(vii) of the Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006 and what are its implications vis-a vis the building permits of respondents 4 and 5? 26. Rule 7.2 (vii) is not the subject matter of these writ petitions and has no application to the case. Rule 7.2(vii) reads as under:- “7.2 Other Requirements for Buildings above 10M height: (vii) In all buildings irrespective of above height provisions, the requirement of parts of the building like size and area requirements of habitable rooms, kitchen, bathrooms and water closets, other areas, corridor and staircase widths, service ducts, etc., shall conform to the National Building code of India, 2005.” 27. Rule 7.2(vii) requires that the parts of the building mentioned therein shall conform to the National Building Code of India. It is not the case of the petitioners that Rule 7.2 (vii) was not compiled with by the respondents 4 and 5. 28. However, it must be noticed that the reference under this point is to the newly added provision to Rule 7.2. “Provision of joint open spaces in certain cases: With a view to facilitating fire and emergency operation in a building site and adjoining sites, the Fire Service Department, in addition to the minimum setbacks to be left, may insist on the owner for providing Joint Open space between the proposed site and adjoining sites for mutual use during fire and emergencies. The joint open space shall be reckoned from building edge to building edge (inclusive of any type of projections). Such joint open space shall not be less than 6 m. in respect of non-high rise buildings and not less than 9m. in respect of high rise buildings. Such joint open space shall be kept unobstructed and open to sky and no permanent compound wall of masonry or civil construction would be allowed. The compound wall, if any, shall be of fending type of collapsible type. in respect of high rise buildings. Such joint open space shall be kept unobstructed and open to sky and no permanent compound wall of masonry or civil construction would be allowed. The compound wall, if any, shall be of fending type of collapsible type. The greenery and landscaping shall be of soft type with lawns, grass, creepers and climbers and shrubs variety of plants and mountable in case of emergencies. The joint open space shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Fire Service Department. Clearance would be considered only after the builder/developer/owners provide an undertaking to this effect”. 30. Under this newly added provision Fire Service Department may insist the owner to provide joint open spaces. But in the instant case respondents 4 and 5 were not directed by the Fire Service Department to leave joint open spaces, It is also not the case of the writ petitioners. This provisions has no relevance to the validity or otherwise of the building permits granted to respondents 4 and 5. I hold that his provision has no effect on the building permits granted to respondents 4 and 5. 31. Point 6: Whether the distances stipulated in Table-V of the Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006 are applicable to the building permits of respondents 4 and 5 by virtue of Rule 7.1 (xv)? 32. I hold that Table V has no application to the building permits granted to respondents 4 and 5. Table V applies only to Group Development Schemes and Group Housing Schemes referred to in Rule 10.7 and not to other buildings like that of respondents 4 and 5. Rule 7.1(xv) reads as follows:-“The space between 2 blocks shall be as given in Table V”. 33. Table V appended to Rule 10. Rule 10 provided for the requirements of Group Development, Group Housing/Cluster Housing/Residential enclosures and Row Housing Schemes. The buildings of respondents 4 and 5 are not apartment blocks or building blocks falling within the ambit of Rule 10. The plots of respondents 4 and 5 being narrow plots Rule 7.1(xv) alone applies and not rule 7.1(xv) and Rule 7.1(xv) has no application to narrow plots. 34. Point 7: Whether the building permits of respondents 4 and 5 are legal and valid? 35. I hold that the building permits granted to respondents 4 and 5 being in accordance with the law are legal and valid. 36. 34. Point 7: Whether the building permits of respondents 4 and 5 are legal and valid? 35. I hold that the building permits granted to respondents 4 and 5 being in accordance with the law are legal and valid. 36. In view of above facts with regard to referred points for decision, I am in total agreement with the judgment of Honourable The Chief Justice for what is stated above, and I hold that (1) The challenge to Memo No. 14283/F2/2009-2, dated 5-10-2009 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh is not maintainable in the context of the pleadings in the writ petitions. (2) The Memo issued by the Government in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 679 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. 1955 is legal and valid. (3) No relaxations were accorded under the said Memo in terms of Rule 7.1(xiv) of the Hyderabad of the Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006. (4) The sub-division of the premises bearing Door No.2-2-20/K/9, Durga Bai Deshmukh Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, is legal and valid. (5) The scope of rule 7.2(vii) of the Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006 and its implication vis-à-vis the building permits of respondents 4 and 5 has no bearing on them. (6) The distances stipulated in Table-V of the Hderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006 are not applicable to thebuilding permits of respondents 4 and 5 by virtue of Rule 7.1 (xv). (7) The building permits of respondents 4 and 5 are legal and valid. 37. The questions referred are answered accordingly. The Office is directed to place the matter before the Division Bench.