JUDGMENT M Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - One Atluri Vijaya Babu (Petitioner No.1), Atluri Venkata Subash Babu (Petitioner No.2) along with Nalanda Estates Private Limited filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the action of the respondents in withholding the application of the third petitioner for building permission vide BA No.1168/1532/B/PMLR/PRNK/2017 dated 19.05.2017 under the guise of Andhra Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary No.850 dated 31.10.2018 issued for the proposed Inner Ring Road (IRR) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently to set-aside the same and direct the respondents to either sanction the third petitioner application vide BA No.1168/1532/B/PMLR/PRNK/2017 dated 19.05.2017 or take steps to acquire the subject property under the applicable land acquisition law in vogue. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 along with others are the land owners to an extent of Ac.1-20 cents in Sy.No.479/3, Ac.0-40 cents in Sy.No.480/1C, Ac.0-28 cents in Sy.No.480/2C and Ac.0-07 cents in Sy.No.481/4 of Poranki Village and Panchayat, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, (herein after referred as 'subject property' for convenience). 3. Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 intended to construct educational institute/school building in the subject property and offered the same to the third petitioner for development on mutually agreed terms and conditions, finally entered into Development Agreement on 10.11.2017 recording all the terms and conditions. 4. The third petitioner - company, in consonance with the Development Agreement approached the second respondent/ Commissioner, AMRDA, vide BA No.1168/1532/B/PMLR/ PRNK/2017 dated 19.05.2017 for constructing an educational institute/school building by paying requisite fee. 5. As per the plan submitted, the total built up area is 5805.85 sq.mts as one single block with cellar and four floors. The third petitioner - company has complied with the mandatory requirements for obtaining the building permission. Further, it is contended that, as per AMRDA Zoning Regulations, the schedule property falls within public use zone and the petitioners are entitled to construct school building in the said property without any hindrances or conversion procedures. 6. It is contended that, as per Section 110 of Capital Region Development Act, 2014 (Repealed Act), the third petitioner - company applied to the second respondent for obtaining building permission. 6. It is contended that, as per Section 110 of Capital Region Development Act, 2014 (Repealed Act), the third petitioner - company applied to the second respondent for obtaining building permission. As per the said provision, the Commissioner shall examine the plan submitted and he may accept unconditionally or conditionally or may refuse the same within sixty (60) days. If, the second respondent fails to accept or refuse the application within such time, the said application for development shall be deemed as accepted. The third petitioner - company has applied for the approval of plan on 19.05.2017 and the second respondent by 18.07.2017 must either have accepted or refused the said application of the petitioners. however, as the proposed building is intended to be used as school building, as it involves thousands of students future, the petitioners refrained from progressing with the development activities, taking cue from deeming provision and diligently waited for the second respondent to give its accord and asatisfaction in the form of building permission approval proceedings. It is submitted that, Section 110 of CRDA Act (Repealed Act) is replaced by Section 84 of AMRDA Act, the law applicable to Amaravati Region as per CRDA Repeal Act No.27 of 2020. Further, the petitioners requested the second respondent several times to release the approved building permission and the second respondent officials dodged the same on one pretext or the other for the past three years and recently, when the third petitioner- company staff insisted the second respondent to take a decision on the permission application dated 19.05.2017, the second respondent officials informed the third petitioner - company that subject property/ building is falling within the alignment of the proposed Inner Ring Road and therefore, permission for the construction cannot be accorded. 7. On enquiry, it was revealed that, the second respondent intended to develop Inner Ring Road for capital region. Accordingly, alignment of draft IRR was prepared and approved on 08.02.2017, final draft alignment was approved on 12.02.2018. Pursuant to the Gazette Notification, published noticed in daily newspaper, notices were given on 17.02.2018 calling for objections/suggestions from the public for a period of 30 days from the date of notification i.e. 18.03.2018. After considering all the objections and suggestions to the draft plan, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 issued Andhra Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary No.850 dated 31.10.2018 confirming the draft master plan for the said IRR. After considering all the objections and suggestions to the draft plan, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 issued Andhra Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary No.850 dated 31.10.2018 confirming the draft master plan for the said IRR. It is submitted that the survey numbers in which the subject property is situated is forming part of the said gazette notification, however it was unclear as to what portion of the subject property is under the alignment of the proposed IRR. 8. It is contended that, since the date of confirmation of the said master plan for the IRR vide Gazette Notification dated 31.10.2018, till date Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 did not take any steps to acquire the land under the alignment of IRR either in part or in full, considering the present controversy. As such, the petitioners requested the second respondent to approve the plan submitted by the third petitioner - company vide application dated 19.05.2017, but no action was taken. 9. In response to the application filed under Right to Information Act, 2005 by one Mr. Lavu Shashank, the authorities gave the following information: S.No Information Sought Remarks 1 IRR proposal still in force or not Inner Ring Road Plan and extension of 27 capital city roads to draft inner ring road plan in APCRDA region was notified vide Andhra Pradesh Gazette extraordinary no.850 dated 31.10.2018. 2 If not in force can we proceed with the submitted plans in R.S.No.479/3, 480/1C and 480/2C of Poranki Village. Inner Ring Road Plan and extension of 37 capital city roads to draft inner ring road plan in APCRDA region was notified vide Andhra Pradesh Gazette extraordinary No.850 dated 31.10.2018. 3 If IRR is still in force, how much of land I am going to lose and how much will be left in RS No.479/3, 480/1C and 480/2C. In a nut shell how much land exactly are you going to acquire with exact specifications of the plan, so that I can go ahead with left out area for construction. 3 If IRR is still in force, how much of land I am going to lose and how much will be left in RS No.479/3, 480/1C and 480/2C. In a nut shell how much land exactly are you going to acquire with exact specifications of the plan, so that I can go ahead with left out area for construction. From the notified plan, the extent of land affected under IRR tentatively is in 1) RS No.479/3 - 2.6815 acres 2) RS No.480/1C - 0.1728 acres 3) RS No.480/2C - Not passing through IRR 4 What is the present status of IRR proposal and kindly provide any IRR approved G.O's if available Inner Ring Road plan and extension of 27 capital city roads to draft inner ring road plan in APCRDA region was notified vide Andhra Pradesh Gazette extraordinary No.850 dated 31.10.2018. 5 IRR detailed plans are prepared or not. If prepared provide plan copy of RS No.479, 480 of Poranki Village and surrounding radius Extracts of the IRR plan enclosed. 10. Despite pendency of proposal for Inner Ring Road, the land was neither acquired nor permission was granted to this petitioner. Therefore, keeping the building application pending for such a long time is contrary to the provisions of APCRDA Act, APMR&UDA Act, 2016. 11. As per Section 95 of Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016, Any land required, reserved or designated in the Perspective Plan [PP] or Master Plan [MP] or Infrastructure Development Plan [IDP] or Area Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan or Land Pooling Scheme [LPS] or Town Planning Scheme [TPS] or a Development Scheme shall be deemed to be the land needed for public purpose within the meaning of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No. 30 of 2013) and may be acquired by the Government on the request by the Authority or other authority or functional unit. 12. It is submitted that the petitioners incurred huge amount towards stamp duty paid towards the Development Agreement dated 10.11.2017, development fee paid to the second respondent authority on building application submitted, fee paid to the architects for the designs of the school building proposed to be constructed on subject property. 12. It is submitted that the petitioners incurred huge amount towards stamp duty paid towards the Development Agreement dated 10.11.2017, development fee paid to the second respondent authority on building application submitted, fee paid to the architects for the designs of the school building proposed to be constructed on subject property. The third petitioner - company in which the first petitioner is a Director had obtained all necessary authorization from the authority concerned i.e. International Baccalaureate for conducting classes by admitting students for primary year programme under the name of Bloomingdale as early as on 01.03.2016 by which time all the building designs were submitted and the ground breaking ceremony is completed. Though the construction is supposed to begin in 2017 and complete by January, 2018. On account of delay, the petitioners are put to serious loss and thereby, the inaction of the respondents in withholding the application of the third petitioner for building permission vide BA No.1168/1532/B/PMLR/PRNK/2017 dated 19.05.2017 under the guise of Andhra Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary No.850 dated 31.10.2018 issued for the proposed Inner Ring Road (IRR) as illegal, arbitrary and therefore, the petitioners sought the relief as stated supra. 13. The second respondent filed counter affidavit, admitting about issue of notification for acquisition of property for Inner Ring Road Project and pendency of the execution of project. The second respondent denied the ownership of the subject land of Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and that, the second respondent never received building application vide BA No.1168/1532/B/PMLR/PRNK/2017 dated 19.05.2017 for construction of RCC roof, cellar, ground and 4 floors in Sy.No.479/3, 480/1C and 480/2C situated at Poranki Village and the same is lying with the Licensed Technical Personnel (LTP), who is appointed by the petitioners. 14. The second respondent specifically contended that, the petitioner never forwarded any application for scrutiny and the present writ petition is filed with an ulterior motive by suppressing the facts. The second respondent also denied that the building approval could not be granted as the property falls within alignment of proposed Inner Ring Road and as such plans are to be in accordance is denied. The Inner Ring Road was proposed in the year 2017 before the alleged application of the petitioners and the same was approved vide Gazette No.850 dated 31.10.2018. The Inner Ring Road was proposed in the year 2017 before the alleged application of the petitioners and the same was approved vide Gazette No.850 dated 31.10.2018. Though the permissions are subject to expansion of Inner Ring Road, the petitioners file was not received and hence approval or rejection does not arise. The respondents further contended that, there was no inaction on their part. 15. It is specifically contended that, in the year 1998, a resolution was passed by panchayat secretary for formation of road on 15.04.1998 and the same was laid with Janmabhoomi grants of Rs.2,00,000/-. The said road was shown as part of petitioners land in the building application. Further, the locals have decided for formation of 33' road for their easement access and the same was ratified by the then Village Panchayat Secretary. 16. Earlier, W.P.No.23384 of 2017 was filed to consider the representations against the petitioners before granting permissions to the petitioner and the same is pending. There are still various complaints by the locals against the petitioner for encroaching the existing 33' road which was laid by their contribution and once a road is formed, the same vests with local authority. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 17. The petitioners filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit denying the averments made in the counter affidavit, while contending that the building permission cannot be rejected or withheld on the ground that the proposed road or proposed constructions when the same has not yet been notified in Gazette Notification. (vide Channavajala Vijaya Lakshmi v. State of Telangana, (2015) 5 ALT 620 ). In the instant case, building permission was arbitrarily withheld for eight months even when there was no notification of the alignment of Inner Ring Road. Further, upon notification, the respondent authorities must have acquired the land by paying due compensation. The respondents filed counter affidavit in W.P (PIL) No.179 of 2019 admitting the fact that they do not have sufficient funds to carry out any works in CRDA region and failure to grant permission to the petitioners to build school, amounting to deprivation of petitioners valuable right to property and it amounts to violation of constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners specifically denied the allegations made in the counter affidavit and requested to allow the writ petition. 18. The petitioners filed material along with the writ petition, whereas, the second respondent filed counter affidavit along with certain documents, by uploading the additional material on 08.07.2021. 19. During hearing, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, when the building application was submitted by complying all formalities, it is the duty of the second respondent to sanction plan or reject it. But, keeping it pending on the pretext that, Inner Ring Road project is pending without acquiring land is nothing but depriving these petitioners to enjoy the property as per their convenience, which is violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, as the petitioners were deprived of enjoying their property. at the same time, it is the duty of the second respondent either to reject or grant permission to these petitioners on the building application within the stipulated time. But, for one reason or the other, the second respondent invented a different story that no such application was received from the petitioners and it is pending with Licensed Technical Personnel (LTP) appointed by these petitioners, which is not true, as the building application was scrutinized by the authorities of the second respondent and screenshot is placed on record in support of it. Finally, learned Senior Counsel requested to issue a direction as claimed in the writ petition. 20. Whereas, Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that, when no building application was received by the office of the second respondent, question of processing the same by the second respondent does not arise and in the absence of any application, conduct of the respondents cannot be faulted. However, as per the material produced by the respondents, the application of the third petitioner is pending with Licensed Technical Personnel (LTP), but not before the office of the second respondent. Therefore, the allegation that the second respondent did not process the building application of the petitioners and failed to proceed with the acquisition of the property is neither true nor correct, therefore, the petitioner cannot compel the respondents to acquire the property. Therefore, the allegation that the second respondent did not process the building application of the petitioners and failed to proceed with the acquisition of the property is neither true nor correct, therefore, the petitioner cannot compel the respondents to acquire the property. Apart from that, 33' feet road was already laid by the panchayat, but the petitioners encroached the said road, which is shown as part of the road, as alleged in the counter affidavit. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition at the stage of admission itself. 21. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is: "Whether the action of the respondents in withholding building application No.1168/1562/ B/PMLR/ PRNK/2017 dated 19.05.2017 is against Section 110 of APCRDA Act or Section 84 of AMRDA Act and failure to acquire the property after issuing Andhra Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary No.850 dated 31.10.2018 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. If so, whether a direction be issued to complete the process of building application No.1168/1562/B/PMLR/ PRNK/2017 dated 19.05.2017 or in the alternative to acquire the property in pursuance of Andhra Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary No.850 dated 31.10.2018? POINT: 22. The ownership of these Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 with Petitioner No.3 is not required to be adjudicated by this Court, in view of the limited scope of dispute in this writ petition, though the second respondent denied the very ownership of these petitioners at one stage. the consistent case of these petitioners from the beginning is that, Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are the owners and they entered into Development Agreement with Petitioner No.3, who in-turn applied for grant of building permission by complying all formalities and by paying necessary fees for sanction of plan etc. In support of their contention, they placed on record, building application No.1168/1562/B/PMLR/PRNK/2017 dated 19.05.2017. When an application is uploaded to the website of the second respondent, the application number will automatically be generated and therefore, the very generation of building application number No.1168/1562/B/PMLR/PRNK/2017 dated 19.05.2017 is sufficient to conclude that Petitioner No.3 submitted an application seeking permission of sanction building plan and permission to construct school. When an application is uploaded to the website of the second respondent, the application number will automatically be generated and therefore, the very generation of building application number No.1168/1562/B/PMLR/PRNK/2017 dated 19.05.2017 is sufficient to conclude that Petitioner No.3 submitted an application seeking permission of sanction building plan and permission to construct school. Receipt No.1168/CH/4209/2017 dated 15.05.2017 evidencing payment of Rs.10,000/- by online vide Transaction ID No.201793 is another additional factor to conclude that application was submitted by Petitioner No.3. Memo No.1168/CH/4209/2017 dated 13.05.2017 also supports the case of Petitioner No.3 that building application was submitted by Petitioner No.3. But, the second respondent filed material papers to show that the application is pending with Licensed Technical Person and produced a screen shot to show that the application of Petitioner No.3 is returned to rectify the plan. The queries mentioned by the concerned officer are filed along with additional material of the second respondent are as follows: Designation Date Remarks Town Planning Officer 05/06/2020 05:45 PM Document refusal site visit refusal technical refusal. Building Inspector 05/06/2020 05:34 PM Applicant may be informed to rectify the plans as per the documents and upload the attested copies of the same by LTP and owner. Further, applicant has to handover RAP to the gram panchayat through registered gift deed and submit letter from panchayat for that effect. Town Planning Officer 05/06/2020 05:01 PM Please put shortfalls in PDF plans & BA form tabs in documents Building Inspector 05/06/2020 01:10 PM The measurements shown in the submitted plans are not tallying with measurements shown in the schedule of the ownership documents submitted. Hence, the applicant may be informed to rectify the plans as per the documents. Applicant has to handover RAP to the gram panchayat. The remarks column in the above table is itself sufficient to conclude that an application was submitted by Petitioner No.3. If, really, no application was submitted by Petitioner No.3, the question of giving opinions to rectify the plans as per the documents or to show correct measurements does not arise. Apart from the above material, the allegation that 33' feet road laid with Janmabhoomi funds by the villages also show as part of the land for proposed construction. Therefore, the contention that, no such application was submitted by Petitioner No.3 for grant of building permission is false on the face of record. Apart from the above material, the allegation that 33' feet road laid with Janmabhoomi funds by the villages also show as part of the land for proposed construction. Therefore, the contention that, no such application was submitted by Petitioner No.3 for grant of building permission is false on the face of record. Thus, the respondents stooped to the extent of denying the very submission of application, though the document produced by the second respondent clinchingly established that Petitioner No.3 submitted an application for approval of the plan and grant of permission for construction of school building. Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent that, no building application was submitted is hereby rejected. 23. When a building application was submitted seeking permission to construct a building, it is the obligation of the second respondent either to grant permission or to return the application for compliance or reject the permission, within sixty days in terms of Section 110 of CRDA Act or Section 84 of AMRDA Act, which is substituted for CRDA, on its repeal. Therefore, Section 110 of CRDA Act is in pari materia with Section 84 of AMRDA Act. But, the second respondent neither granted permission nor returned the application till 05.06.2020, though the application was submitted on 19.05.2017. Thus, the inaction of the second respondent is arbitrary and illegal. 24. The second bone of contest is that, the land in which the petitioners are proposing to construct school building is falling within the Inner Ring Road alignment. If, really, the land is falling within the Inner Ring Road alignment, in terms of Gazette Notification dated 17.02.2018, keeping it pending for the last three years without acquiring any land, indirectly refusing to grant building permission on the ground that it is within the alignment zone of Inner Ring Road is illegal on the face of it. 25. It is contended that, when a private property is shown in the development plan and when application for construction of building by its own was submitted, keeping the application pending without any reasonable cause is illegal. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners placed on record the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 222 . In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners placed on record the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 222 . In the facts of the above judgment, Plot No. 438 belonged to private person and was shown as a garden in the development plan of 1966. No effort was made by Municipal Corporation or Government to acquire this plot for purpose of developing it as a garden. When it was not acquired for the purpose of garden owner of this land the appellants moved Government for de-reserving. Government after resorting to necessary formalities de-reserved land by the impugned notification, all procedures required under 1966 Act were observed and notification was issued inviting objections against de-reservation. Reservation had lapsed due to lack of funds, had not taken any step to acquire land within the stipulated statutory period. Hence, the land which is earmarked earmarked for a particular purpose namely to promote environmental exigencies can it be de-reserved if not acquired by state within stipulated time for the said purpose, was the question before the Apex Court. 26. The Apex Court, while referring to various provisions of Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, concluded that the Municipality has to sanction the plan in terms of Municipalities Act, if the application complies the formalities. 27. Similarly, in Channavajala Vijaya Lakshmi v. State of Telangana (referred supra), the learned Single Judge of High Court of Telangana held that, building permission cannot be rejected or withheld on the ground that the proposed road or proposed constructions when the same has not yet been notified by Gazette Notification. 28. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Raju S. Jethmalani case (referred supra), keeping the building application pending ad infinitum on the ground that private land was identified for park for public use, as an illegality and keeping the application for building permission pending without any reasonable or justifiable cause is contrary to the law laid down therein. In the present facts of the case, though the third petitioner made application vide BA No.1168/1532/B/PMLR/PRNK/2017 dated 19.05.2017, process of it is not completed. In the present facts of the case, though the third petitioner made application vide BA No.1168/1532/B/PMLR/PRNK/2017 dated 19.05.2017, process of it is not completed. But, it appears that in the year 2020, it was returned for compliance of objections, in view of the screenshot produced before this Court by the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. It is not known whether the application was represented after compliance of objections by the third petitioner. If the petitioner re-presented the application for building permission, it is the duty of the second respondent authorities to complete the process within sixty (60) days from the date of its re-presentation in terms of Section 110 of CRDA Act or Section 84 of AMRDA Act. But, here the second respondent did not complete the process for granting permission to the third petitioner for construction of building, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment referred supra. On this ground alone, the inaction of the second respondent in not completing the process of application for grant of building permission to construct a building be declared as illegality. 29. At the same time, this Court in Channavajala Vijaya Lakshmi v. State of Telangana (referred supra) held that, when a building application was made, keeping it pending for indefinite period on the ground that the property is likely to be issued for acquisition is not a ground. Thus, the failure of the second respondent to complete the process of application for building permission is a grave illegality committed by the second respondent. 30. Though the land is proposed to be acquired and notification is issued on 18.03.2018 for Inner Ring Road and the land of these petitioners is also covered by the notification, in such case, the respondents may complete the process of acquisition, so as to enable the these petitioners to take appropriate steps to secure alternative premises or to de-notify the land within a reasonable time. But, simply, the second respondent issued notification for acquiring the land of the petitioners along with the land of others under the Gazette Notification dated 18.03.2018. But, till date, it was not acquired and process of acquisition under Act No.30 of 2013 is commenced though notification was issued on 18.03.2018. But, simply, the second respondent issued notification for acquiring the land of the petitioners along with the land of others under the Gazette Notification dated 18.03.2018. But, till date, it was not acquired and process of acquisition under Act No.30 of 2013 is commenced though notification was issued on 18.03.2018. Therefore, issue of Gazette Notification for acquisition of land and failure to commence the process of acquisition in terms of the provisions of Act. 30 of 2013 for unreasonable period is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra (referred supra). 31. As discussed above, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, the inaction of the second respondent in completion of the process of building application for sanction of plan and inaction in the process of commencement of acquisition in terms of Act.No.30 of 2013 is illegal and arbitrary and such act amounts to depriving these petitioners from enjoying their property and it is in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Hence, I find that it is a fit case to issue a direction as claimed by these petitioners. Accordingly, the point is answered. 32. In the result, writ petition is allowed, declaring the action of the second respondent in not completing the process for grant of permission for building application and failure to initiate the proceedings for acquisition or commence the process of acquisition of land notified in Gazette Extraordinary No.850 dated 31.10.2018 issued for the proposed Inner Ring Road (IRR), as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the second respondent is directed to complete the process of building application submitted by the third petitioner within sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in case, the building application is returned and represented by the petitioners or in the alternative, the second respondent is directed to commence the process of acquisition of land in terms of Act 30 of 2013 within sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order or de-notify the land from proposed acquisition vide Gazette Notification dated 31.10.2018. 33. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.