Judgment : The petitioner is a Co-operative Building Society at Tirupati. The membership is restricted to Teachers. Way-back in the year 1966, the Society acquired Ac.16-67 cents of land in Survey Nos.516, 517 (part), 519, 520, 521/1, 521/2, 521/3, 522 and 523 (part); Ac.2-35 cents in Survey No.515/1 and Ac.0-92 cents in Survey No.518/1C of Peruru Village of Chittoor District. The local authority at the relevant point of time was Gram Panchayat. The petitioner submitted layout application for the sanction of layout plan for the entire extent of Ac.19-94 cents. The file was processed by the Gram Panchayat and ultimately, the Director of Town Planning sanctioned layout, being L.P.No.125/66. Thereafter, slight changes were made through revised layout being L.P.No.211/66. An extent of Ac.2-15 cents was required to be left towards open place. The petitioner allotted plots as per the sanctioned layout. At a later point of time, it emerged that the land in Survey Nos.515/1 and 518/1C admeasuring Ac.3-27 cents was assigned to the landless poor persons at one point of time and on finding that the alienation thereof was in contravention of the conditions of the assignment, not only the assignment was cancelled but also the land was assigned in the year 1966 to a person by name Pattabhirami Reddy. When the legal heirs of Pattabhirami Reddy initiated steps for resumption of possession of the land of Ac.3-27 cents, the petitioner approached the Government. There was stay of such proceedings till the year 1974. Thereafter, the appeal/revision was dismissed for default. Daughter of Pattabhirami Reddy filed an application for sanction of layout in the year 2004 for the extent of Ac.3-27 cents. The layout was sanctioned to her and the petitioner lost the possession of that piece of land. On finding that the open area of Ac.2-15 cents was from out of Ac.3-27 cents, which the petitioner lost on account of cancellation of assignment, the Tirupati Urban Development Authority – 2nd respondent herein initiated steps requiring the petitioner to make good, the extent of land, or to deposit the cost of the same. On finding that the open area of Ac.2-15 cents was from out of Ac.3-27 cents, which the petitioner lost on account of cancellation of assignment, the Tirupati Urban Development Authority – 2nd respondent herein initiated steps requiring the petitioner to make good, the extent of land, or to deposit the cost of the same. After prolonged correspondence, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 11.02.2005 observing that as against Ac.2-15 cents of the land, which was required to be made good, an extent of Ac.0-46 cents is available with them in the layout sanctioned to the petitioner in one form or the other, and that the cost of the land for the remaining extent of Ac.1-69 cents must be paid at the prevailing market rate. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said proceedings. The petitioner contends that the requirement as to the open placewhen the layout was sanctioned in the year 1966 was only 5% of the total area under the relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act and that the 2nd respondent cannot insist on surrender of more area than that. It is stated that 5% of the remaining area of Ac.16-67 cents comes to Ac.0-84 cents and after excluding the available area of Ac.0-46 cents, they are liable to pay the cost for Ac.0-38 cents at the rate that prevailed when the layout was sanctioned. The relief in this direction is prayed for. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that a definite extent of Ac.2-15 cents, was mentioned as open area by the Director of Town Planning, when releasing the layout and that the petitioner cannot seek reduction of the same. It is further stated that the petitioner was shown indulgence by taking Ac.0-46 cents of the land that is available with them in the layout sanctioned, into account. Heard Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for the respondents 1 and 3; and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. The petitioner obtained layout for the entire area of Ac.19-94 cents way-back in the year 1966. It is no doubt true that in the proceedings issued by the Director of Town Planning, the open area to be left was mentioned as Ac.2-15 cents. The petitioner obtained layout for the entire area of Ac.19-94 cents way-back in the year 1966. It is no doubt true that in the proceedings issued by the Director of Town Planning, the open area to be left was mentioned as Ac.2-15 cents. However, the specific plea raised by the petitioner that under G.O.Ms.No.377, dated 12.10.1973, issued under the relevant provisions of the Gram Panchayat Act and the Rules made thereunder, the requirement was not more than 5% of the total area, is not specifically adverted to. The mere fact that a larger extent of area was required to be left towards open area does not justify deviation from the Rules. The open area left as part of the layout was found to be an assigned land and a subsequent assignee recovered possession of the same. Thereby, the petitioner incurred the obligation to make good of such an area. As long as the plea of the petitioner that the requirement as to open area was only 5% at the relevant point of time is not seriously contested, the 2nd respondent cannot insist on making good the area of Ac.2-15 cents as against Ac.0-84 cents constituting 5% of Ac.16.67 cents. In all fairness, the respondents gave credit to the area of Ac.0-46 cents available with them in the layout. The dispute is only about balance of the area. While according to the 2nd respondent it is Ac.1-69 cents, the petitioner insists that it is only Ac.0-38 cents. This Court is of the view that the petitioner can be required to make good only Ac.0-38 cents totaling to 5% of the area laid out. Since that it is not possible for the petitioner, to acquire that area now, they have to pay the market value of Ac.0-38 cents. Though the petitioner contends that the market value should be the one prevailing as on the date of layout, this Court is not prepared to accept the contention. Even now, the petitioner can provide Ac.0-38 cents of land if it is available with them or by purchasing it. Since the market value is being paid in lieu of that land, it should naturally be one at the prevailing rate. Even now, the petitioner can provide Ac.0-38 cents of land if it is available with them or by purchasing it. Since the market value is being paid in lieu of that land, it should naturally be one at the prevailing rate. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed directing that: a) the petitioner shall be under obligation to make good Ac.0-38 cents of land towards open place as against Ac.1-69 cents insisted by the 2nd respondent; b) in case, the petitioner is unable to provide Ac.0-38 cents of land, it shall be under obligation to pay the present market value, according to the Basic Value Register available in the concerned Sub-Registrar’s office; and c) if any amount towards the open area was collected by the 2nd respondent from the members of the petitioner – Society while according sanction, the same shall be given credit to. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.