ORDER : The 1st petitioner owns Ac.8.095 cents in Sy.Nos.53, 55, 57, 58, 59 and 61-A and various sub-divisions of Sy.No.52, and the 2nd petitioner owns Ac.14.48 cents of land in various sub-divisions of Sy.Nos.32, 46, 47, 48, 49 and Sy.Nos.50 and 54 of Allipuram village, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 2. Respondents 6 & 7 are the owners of an extent of Ac.19.44 cents in Sy.Nos.65, 66, and various sub-divisions of Sy.Nos.64, 69, 70 and 73-A of Allipuram village, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The respondents 6 and 7 had entered into a development agreement with the 8th respondent, by way of a registered deed bearing Document No.1465/2021, dated 26.02.2021 for developing the said land. On the basis of this agreement, an application for layout permission was made on 31.03.2021. The 2nd respondent, after receipt of this application, granted temporary layout permission on 21.06.2021 and final layout permission on 09.07.2021 in proceedings L.P.No.16/2021/1031/NUDA/DPMS to an extent of Ac.19.20. 3. The petitioners, whose lands are adjacent to the lands in which the layout permission has been given, are said to have objected even while the application of respondents 6 and 7 was being considered. As final layout approval had been given by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition challenging the grant of the final layout permission in the proceedings mentioned above. 4. The objections of the petitioners to the said layout are essentially two fold. Firstly, a “Daruvu” exists, in Sy.No.72, to an extent of Ac.1.07 cents on the southern side of the layout and the respondents had encroached into the said Daruvu to an extent of Ac.0.25 cents. The petitioners contend that this violates Rule 11(a) of the A.P. Land Development (Layout and Sub-Division) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) which prohibit construction and land development in the bed of water bodies and Rule 11(b) which stipulates that the “recreational/green buffer zone” shall be maintained for a distance of 9 meters of any such lake boundary or water body boundary, which has a spread of less than 10 hectares of land. Secondly, the layout has been made in such a way that the said layout cuts off access to the land of the petitioners and the same is violative of Rule 4(b)(iv), which stipulates that permission may be refused when the proposed street or road of the layout is not so planned as to connect at least at one end with a street, which is already open. It is the contention of the petitioner that the unofficial respondents have deliberately closed the land in plot No.189 and plot No. 193 in such a manner that the said plot cuts off access to the land of the petitioners. 5. Respondents 6 to 8 have filed their counters contending that there is no Daruvu in Sy.No.72 and the land admeasuring Ac.1.07 cents in Sy.No.72 is endowment land which is under cultivation and no part of the said land has been encroached by respondent 6 to 8. It is further contended that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioners have no locus in the matter as no personal right of theirs has been infringed. As far as access to the lands of the petitioner is concerned, respondents 6 to 8 contend that there is another layout, known as Vemareddy Nagar, adjacent to the layout of respondents 6 to 8 and the roads in the layout of the Respondents 6 to 8 are connected to the roads of the layout known as Vema Reddy Nagar. It is further submitted that there is a 90 ft wide road between these two layouts and the petitioners have access to this 90 feet road and as such there can be no objection to the layout of respondents 6 to 8. 6. Respondent No.2, who is the Vice-Chairman of the Nellore Urban Development Authority, and respondent No.5, who is the Superintendent Engineer of the Irrigation Department, have filed counters. The 2nd respondent contends that the layout permission had been granted in accordance with the Rules as the existing canal /kalava/water channel is retained in its natural position. It is further stated that there is no water body or Daruvu on the ground in Sy.No.72 and the land in Sy.No.72 is being cultivated. The 2nd respondent contends that the layout permission had been granted in accordance with the Rules as the existing canal /kalava/water channel is retained in its natural position. It is further stated that there is no water body or Daruvu on the ground in Sy.No.72 and the land in Sy.No.72 is being cultivated. On the question of access to the land of the petitioners, the 2nd respondent states that the petitioners can acquire the land from the neighbours if they do not have an approach road to their land. 7. Respondent No.5 states that there is a branch channel of Pallapu Kaluva in Sy.No.68, which is adjacent to the layout of respondent Nos.6 to 8 and the owners of neighbouring lands had partially filled it with loose soils at some points in the layout area and a notice dated 03.08.2021 was issued to respondents 6 to 8 to remove the soils in the canal and to clear it. Apart from this, the Executive Engineer, Nellore Central Division, Nellore had given a No Objection Certificate on 12.04.2021 for the proposed layout and for permitting the 6th respondent to construct a suitable structure for crossing the branch canal of Pallapu Kaluva. 8. The above pleadings of the respective parties, give raise to the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioners have locus to file the present writ petition? 2. Whether there is a Daruvu in Sy.No.72 of Allipuram Village over an extent of Ac.1.07 cents? 3. Whether the layout of respondents 6 to 8 encroaches into the said land categorised as Daruvu? 4. Whether there is violation of Rule 11 in terms of a buffer zone being maintained between the said Daruvu and the water channel of said Pallapu Kaluva? 5. Whether there is a violation of Rule 4 of the Rules because of the petitioners not having access to their lands through the layout of respondents 6 to 8? Consideration of the Court: Maintainability of the writ petition: 9. The contention of respondent 6 to 8 is that the petitioners have no locus to file the present writ petition as none of their rights are being affected. The petitioners are the owners of the lands neighbouring the layout of respondents 6 to 8. The contention of the petitioners is that access to their land has been lost on account of the layout being made in the land of respondents 6 and 7. The petitioners are the owners of the lands neighbouring the layout of respondents 6 to 8. The contention of the petitioners is that access to their land has been lost on account of the layout being made in the land of respondents 6 and 7. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the petitioners do not have locus as the petitioners have approached this Court on the ground that access to their land is being lost. Is there a Daruvu in Sy.No.72: 10. The respondents 6 to 8 have produced an Adangal of Sy.No.72, which shows that the said land has been classified as Government land which belongs to a temple. The land is being described as “road poramboke”. On the other hand, the petitioners have produced a plaint copy filed by the 6th respondent in O.S.No.269 of 2019 in the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. In the plaint and affidavit signed by the 6th respondent, there is a specific statement that a Daruvu exists over an extent of Ac.1.07 cents in Sy.No.72 of Allipuram Village and that “Daruvu” means a large water pond meant for village purpose useful for cattle, washermen, growing up fish and other common activities of the residents of the village. The petitioners have also filed photographs showing a notice set up by the Tahsildar of the Mandal stating that Ac.1.07 cents of land in Sy.No.72 is occupied by a Daruvu. 11. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would also rely upon the averment of the 2nd respondent in paragraph-5 of the counter filed by the 2nd respondent that there is no Daruvu in existence as it has been abandoned. He contends that this would mean that there was a Daruvu in existence earlier which had been abandoned subsequently. He would submit that in such a situation, the prior existence of the Daruvu is not in doubt and the same would have to be restored. 12. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 8 submit that it is not clear as to whether the board had been set up by the Tahsildar and in any event, the Adangal clearly shows that the land has not been classified as a water body or Daruvu in the revenue records and consequently, it cannot be held that there was a Daruvu in the land. 13. In view of the unequivocal statements of the 6th respondent in the plaint and in the affidavit in O.S.No.269 of 2019 and in view of the statement of the 2nd respondent, in the counter affidavit filed in the present writ petition, it is clear that both of them have admitted the existence of a Daruvu over Ac.1.07 cents of land in Sy.No.72. In the circumstances, it must be held that there was a Daruvu or water body over an extent of Ac.1.07 cents in Sy.No.72 of Allipuram Village. Did respondents 6 to 8 encroach upon the said Daruvu: 14. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Respondents 6 to 8 had encroached the Daruvu in Survey No. 72 to an extent of Ac.0.25 cents. However, no material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate such an encroachment. On the other hand, respondents 6 to 8 have produced a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Nellore Rural Mandal, dated 13.09.2021 stating that respondents 6 to 8 have not encroached into Sy.No.72. The 2nd respondent while contending that Daruvu had been abandoned, also states that there is no encroachment in Sy.No.72. In the circumstances, it would have to be held that the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any encroachment by respondents 6 to 8 in Sy.No.72. Whether there is violation of Rule 11 requiring a buffer zone in Daruvu or water canal adjacent to the layout: 15. The layout plan filed along with the counter filed by respondents 6 to 8 shows that a canal is flowing on the northern side of the layout and that open space has been left along the entire length of the canal. The petitioners except taking an objection that the open sites left by respondents 6 to 8 does not meet the purpose of proper usage by the respondents of the layout did not dispute the fact that the respondents 6 to 8 have left open space along the water channel. In the circumstances, it must be held that adequate buffer area has been left by respondents 6 to 8. Whether there is violation of Rule 4 of the Rules denying access to land of the petitioners: 16. In the circumstances, it must be held that adequate buffer area has been left by respondents 6 to 8. Whether there is violation of Rule 4 of the Rules denying access to land of the petitioners: 16. It is the contention of the petitioners that the layout has been drawn up by respondents 6 to 8 deliberately to cut off access to the road from land of the petitioners and that respondents 6 to 8 deliberately created plots bearing Nos.188 and 192 to cut off access to the petitioners to the roads being developed by respondents 6 to 8. On the other hand, respondents 6 to 8 would submit that the petitioners do not require any access through the layout of respondents 6 to 8 as the petitioners have access through the neighbouring lay out through which the petitioners can reach the main road. A perusal of the plan of the final layout would show that the petitioners have no access through the layout of the respondents. To that extent, the contention of the petitioners would have to be upheld. However, respondents 6 to 8 contend that the petitioners have an alternative road, by way of access to the neighbouring layout known as Vema Reddy Nagar. However, the material placed before this Court does not demonstrate this fact clearly. Further the statement of the 2nd respondent, which is the authority for grant of final layout is that the petitioners can acquire land for obtaining access. This statement, in a round about way, is also an admission of the fact that the petitioners have not being given access through the layout of respondents 6 to 8. 17. In the circumstances, the 2nd respondent would have to ensure that access to the land of the petitioners is not cut off by virtue of the layout being developed by respondents 6 to 8. There is a duty cast on the 2nd respondent to ensure that there is compliance of the Rules. 18. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions 1. The 2nd respondent to verify whether the petitioners have access to the main road through the layout known as Vemareddy Nagar and whether the petitioners would be entitled to further access through the layout of respondents 6 to 8 in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules. 2. The 2nd respondent to verify whether the petitioners have access to the main road through the layout known as Vemareddy Nagar and whether the petitioners would be entitled to further access through the layout of respondents 6 to 8 in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules. 2. This exercise shall be completed by the 2nd respondent by verifying, on the ground whether such access exists for the petitioners, by conducting an inspection on the ground after giving due opportunity and notice to respondents 6 to 8 and the petitioners. 3. After conducting such an inspection, the 2nd respondent shall consider the objections/explanation given by both respondents 6 to 8 and the petitioners on the question of access to the petitioners, in conformity with Rule 4 of the Rules. 4. The 2nd respondent shall, after considering the objections filed by the petitioners and respondents 6 to 8, pass appropriate orders either granting access to the petitioners through the layout of respondents 6 to 8 or directing the petitioners to use the existing access, if any available, through the layout known as Vemareddy Nagar. 5. This exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 20. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.