ORDER : This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “ ……to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus {i} declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in contemplating to construct ward sachivalayam and community hall by converting the place earmarked for park in the land situate between Door No 15 582 and 15522 at Sy.No. 953/1A, Andhra Bank (Union bank) Lane, Balaji Colony, Tirupati Urban, Tirupati District, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 21, 49, 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to several Judgments of this Honble Court and the Hon’ble Supreme court of India and{ii} consequently direct the respondents to restore and develop the public park in the land situate between Door No 1-5-582 and 1-5-522 at Sy No 953/1A Andhra Bank (Union bank) Lane, Balaji Colony, Tirupati Urban, Tirupati District, as it was meant for public park as per the layout even according to the 3rd respondent iii and to pass such other order or orders…….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that all the petitioners are retired employees and they are residents of Balaji Colony, Tirupati, since more than last 50 years. “Sri Balaji Cooperative House Building Society Limited” purchased land and formed Layout with the permission of the then Tirupati Municipality. The place between Door Nos.1-5-582 and 1-5-522 was shown as road. Therefore, the 1st petitioner made a representation to Municipality seeking permission to install a gate from the southern side of his house but the Municipality replied that it is not possible since the said place is earmarked as Park as per the layout. There is a huge 100 years old tree in the said land and a walking track. The said place earmarked for park is the only Urban lung place in the entire colony and being used by local residents. While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent staff at the behest of the local politicians started clearing the park area with JCB and informed the residents around that a ward Sachivalayam and community Hall is going to be constructed in the said place. After erecting Shamiyana tents and other paraphernalia, the local politicians conducted a foundation stone ceremony for construction of Ward Secretariat. After erecting Shamiyana tents and other paraphernalia, the local politicians conducted a foundation stone ceremony for construction of Ward Secretariat. The petitioners along with other residents approached the Local MLA and submitted representation requesting not to disturb the land earmarked for park and to develop the park. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. This Court vide order dated 03.08.2022 has granted interim direction vide I.A.No.1 of 2022 in WP No.24011 of 2022, which reads as under : “….The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are taking steps to construct Ward Sachivalayam and other constructions in the land earmarked for park in the land situated between Dr.No.1-5-582 and 1-5-522 situated at Sy.No.953/1A, Andhra Bank (Union Bank) Lane, Balaji Colony, Tirupati Urban, Tirupati District. It is settled law that no construction shall be made in the land earmarked for public purpose particularly for the parks and for public amenities and as such, there shall be interim direction as prayed for…” 4. Counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent denying all the averments made in the petition. It is stated that according to the approved layout, the schedule plot is an open space not earmarked for park. The contention of the petitioners is that the schedule plot is an open space in the approved layout meant for public purpose. The Ward sachivalayam is also for the convenience of general public of Ward No.23 and 29. It is stated that there is no other vacant site in the surroundings of the area and therefore this respondent proposed to construct Ward Sachivalayam for the convenience of the general public. It is further stated that there is sufficient open space on the eastern side of the layout shown in the layout plan No.56/1963 for Town Survey No.953/1A of Tirupati Town. The Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub-division) Rules 2017 do not apply to the subject plot as this layout was approved in the year 1963. The open space earmarked for public purpose is being utilized for construction of Ward Sachivalayam building, which is only for public purpose. It is further stated that this respondent has not acted against the Articles 21, 49 and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India, as the subject site is not meant for park. The open space earmarked for public purpose is being utilized for construction of Ward Sachivalayam building, which is only for public purpose. It is further stated that this respondent has not acted against the Articles 21, 49 and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India, as the subject site is not meant for park. This respondent also filed a Caveat petition before this Court on 5.7.2022 seeking to issue prior notice to the Caveator in the event of suit with petition therein that would be filed by the respondents and give an opportunity to appear and oppose the same before passing an order on it, as the schedule property is vested with the respondent Corporation and these petitioners have not right or title over the same. Further, the petitioners are not eligible for any relief as prayed for them. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Additional counter affidavit also has been filed by the 3rd respondent. While reiterating the averments made in the counter, it is stated that the subject site is an open space in the approved layout meant for public purpose. It is situated in between D.No.1-5-582 and 1-5-522 at Sy.No.953/1A of Balaji Colony area in the dead end of the road left for communal purpose. According to Section 380(1) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955, the Commissioner may, subject to the provisions of Section 146, 147 and 148, which is extracted hereunder : 380. (1) The Commissioner may, subject to the provisions of sections 146, 147 and 148:— Power to prohibit use of public streets for certain kinds of traffic. Power to acquire premises for improvement of public streets. 266 [Act No. II of 1956] (a) acquire any land required for the purpose of opening, widening, extending, diverting or otherwise improving any public street, bridge, or subway or of making any new public street, bridge or subway, and the buildings, if any, standing upon such land; (b) acquire in addition to the said land and the buildings, if any, standing thereupon, all such land with the buildings, if any, standing thereupon as it shall deem expedient for the Corporation to acquire outside of the regular line or of the intended regular line of such street; (c) lease, sell or otherwise dispose of any land or building purchased under clause (b). (2) The acquisition of land for providing, extending or improving a place for the parking of vehicles shall be deemed to be an acquisition of land for the purpose of providing, extending or improving a public street. (3) Any conveyance of land or of a building under clause (c) of sub-section (1) may comprise such conditions as the Commissioner thinks fit, as to the removal of the existing building, the description of new building to be erected, the period within which such new building shall be completed and other such matters. It is further stated that this respondent has proposed to construct a building for Ward Sachivalayam at the ground floor and Mahila Samakhya at the 1st floor of the proposed building in the subject site which is vested with this Corporation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition and also prayed that the interim order granted in I.A No.1 of 2022 dated 3.8.2022 may kindly be withdrawn. 6. In response, reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petition and denying all the contents made in the counter, stated that as per LP No.56/1963 approved by the then Director of Town Planning, the subject site is not meant for part, is bereft of truth and contrary to record. Having asserted that the subject land is not earmarked for park as per the layout plan, respondent intentionally did not file the said layout plan approved in LP No.56/1963, for the best reasons known to them. Non filing of layout plan would speak volumes against the respondent. The averment of the respondent is that as per the approved layout, the schedule land is an open space not earmarked for park, is totally misleading and untenable. In any case, assuming that the land is not earmarked for park and it is earmarked for public purpose, the municipal corporation has no authority to allow construction of Ward Sachvalayam. 7. Heard Sri Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri N. Bharat Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Municipal administration, Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 8. 7. Heard Sri Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri N. Bharat Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Municipal administration, Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 8. During hearing, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 3rd respondent has fairly admitted that the plot in between Door No.1-5-582 and 1-5-522 in Sy.No.953/1A, Balaji Colony, Tirupati was earmarked for public purpose as per the layout vide LP No.56/1963 which approved by the then Director of Town and Country Planning, A.P., Hyderabad. The averment of the 3rd respondent that it is earmarked for public purpose, but not public park, is preposterous and absurd. The public purpose necessarily means that the place earmarked for parks, community halls, play grounds, utilities etc. In any case, this Hon’ble Court, while dealing with similar issues, made it amply clear that construction of Ward Sachivalayam cannot be constructed in the ‘place earmarked for public purpose’. The Rule 13(10) of Andhra Pradesh Development (Layout and Sub-division) Rules, 2017, specifically states that Government/Development Authority/Local authority/ Developer/Owner/Applicant have no authority to convert the site reserved for public purpose such as park or playground, utilities, amenities affordable housing etc., to some other purpose. He further submits that on a number of occasions, the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts including this High Court, have emphasized that the concerned local authorities are obligated to maintain the open spaces, which were vested in them during layouts, for the purpose of which they were earmarked. 9. To support his contention, learned Senior counsel has relied upon a judgment of this Court dated22.06.2020 passed in W.P.No.20112 of 2019, wherein this Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents not to make any attempts to construct Gram Sachivalayam II (Village Secretariat) building in the open space in an extent of Ac.0.53 cents (2565.2 sq yds) which was gifted by the original owners in favour of 3rd respondent under Gift Deed dated 20.09.1995 for the purpose of developing park/library/school etc. for the public purpose. Thus, learned counsel argued that the proposed action of the respondents is impermissible and condemnable in the eye of law and prayed to allow the writ petition. 10. for the public purpose. Thus, learned counsel argued that the proposed action of the respondents is impermissible and condemnable in the eye of law and prayed to allow the writ petition. 10. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the subject site was not earmarked for park and the same was vacant since the formation of layout in the locality. Further submits that there were no trees in subject land. He further submits that the petitioners have no prima facie case to file the present writ petition. He further submits that the schedule site situated between D.No.1-5-582 and 1-5-522 at Sy.No.953/1A of Balaji Colony area is a dead end of the road, an open space, not earmarked for park but for communal purpose. The 3rd respondent has proposed to construct a Ward Sachivalayam building in the vacant site for the convenience of the general public residing at Ward Nos.23 & 29. The site was vacant for the last several years and is vested with the respondent Corporation and that the petitioners with an intention of grabbing the vacant site, filed the present writ petition for their personal gain. Therefore, the writ petition deserves no consideration as there are no valid grounds and hence prayed to dismiss the same. 11. On perusing the entire material available on record and on considering the submissions made by both counsels, this Court observed that, in view of the law declared in catena of perspective pronouncements, the site reserved for public purpose in the layout cannot be used for any other purpose and it is for the benefit of public i.e., for construction of school, temple, community hall and park etc. The intention of the State is to convert the land, reserved for public purpose, into house sites for allotment to the landless poor persons, depriving the residents of the layout to enjoy the amenities like school, temple, community hall and part for their use. If such conversion is permitted, the residents of the layout will lose not only their amenities and also right to enjoy clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civil amenities like roads etc., that too such conversion is impermissible under law as discussed above including the Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub-division) Rules 2017 the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Andhra Pradesh Town Planning Act, 1920. Therefore, the proposed allotment of land reserved for public purpose is totally in violation of law declared by the Apex Court, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the law declared by the Madras High Court in various judgments. Therefore, such conversion of land reserved for public purpose into house sites by the State depriving the residents of layout to enjoy the benefit in reservation of such plots for public use is a grave illegality and contrary to the provisions of enactments referred above. 12. As per Rule 3 of the Rules 2002, every person or a corporate body or the Government or a private corporate body who intends to undertake or carry out layout or development work shall be required to apply in writing to the Executive authority of such intention in the form prescribed in Annexure-A appended to the Rules by accompanying the documents mentioned in sub-rule(3). 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Apex Court and several High Courts have vividly delineated that the open spaces which were earmarked duringthe formation of layouts shall be used for providing lung space to the residents and other occupants in the vicinity and such open spaces cannot be used for any purposes other than the purposes for which such open spaces were earmarked. 14. Thus, a conspectus of the statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements would expound that the open spaces vested in the Local Authorities while making layouts are held by them under Public Trust and thereby obligaed to utilize such open spaces exclusively for the purpose for which they were earmarked. Any deviation, for however different laudable object, will not sub serve the interest of public. Therefore, the proposed construction of Village Secretariat (Grama Sachivalayam II) by the respondents cannot be given a stamp of approval. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that, the construction activity contemplated by the respondents would be in breach of Articles 21, 49, 51-A(g) of the Constitution as the existing park area which is the only open space in the residential area can be destroyed and the citizens particularly the residents of the area would be deprived of the quality of life to which they are entitled under the law and to maintain ecology of the area. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents No.3 and 4 are directed not to construct Ward Sachivalayam and community hall by converting the place earmarked for park in the land situated in between Door No.1-5-582 and 1-5-522 at Sy No.953/1A, Andhra Bank (Union Bank) Balaji Colony, Tirupati Urban, Tirupati. Consequently, the respondents are also directed to restore and develop the public park in the subject land, as it was meant for Public Park as per the layout even according to the 3rd respondent. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.