JUDGMENT 1. It is claimed that the petitioners along with their father had jointly purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas covered by Sy.No.62 (part), situated at Madhapur Village and Grampanchayat, Serilingampally Revenue Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.12314/1990, dtd. 13/8/1990 from one Sri Mekala Vittalaiah, S/o Sri Ramulu and four others through their registered General Power of Attorney holder and they have been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property. 2. It is stated that after purchasing the said property the petitioners herein divided their land into house plots and sold in favour of third parties and the petitioners herein retained an extent of 1860 square yards out of Ac.4.00 guntas for their personal use. The original owners i.e. Mekala Vittalaiah and four others filed declarations before the Urban Land Ceiling Authority in File No.F1/4143/6(1)2004 and were declared as surplus land holders for an extent of 73, 462.38 square meters of land (including the subject land) in Sy.Nos.31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 62, situated at Madhapur Village and Gram Panchayat, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District and the ULC authorities have taken paper possession of the surplus land under Sec. 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). 3. It is stated that the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.Nos.455 and 456 Revenue (UC-I) Department dtd. 29/7/2002 inviting applications from the general public who were in possession of the surplus land to seek regularization of the subject land. Pursuant thereto, the 21 plot holders have filed applications before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Circle-11, Ranga Reddy zone. The said plots were regularized by issuing G.O.Ms.No.446 Revenue (UC-III) Department dtd. 9/4/2007. The ULC Act was repealed in State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27/3/2008. 4. It is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, taking into consideration the public interest, issued G.O.Ms.No.747 Revenue (UC-I) Department dtd. 18/6/2008 calling for applications from the general public whoever have not availed the exemption given in G.O.Ms.No.455 and 456 dtd. 29/7/2002. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners filed an application on 24/12/2013 seeking regularization of the plot for an extent of 1860 square yards out of Ac.4.00 guntas which they have purchased under a registered sale deed bearing document No.12314/1990 dtd. 13/8/1990. The petitioners paid an amount of Rs.20, 00, 000.00 through Demand Draft bearing No.003512 dtd. 29/7/2002. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners filed an application on 24/12/2013 seeking regularization of the plot for an extent of 1860 square yards out of Ac.4.00 guntas which they have purchased under a registered sale deed bearing document No.12314/1990 dtd. 13/8/1990. The petitioners paid an amount of Rs.20, 00, 000.00 through Demand Draft bearing No.003512 dtd. 24/12/2013. 5. It is stated that the respondent No.2 issued a memo dtd. 12/2/2014 in File No.F1/747/26266/2013 in CC No.F1/4143/2004 directing the petitioners to submit registered documents along with link documents duly attested by the Gazetted officer and also directed them to deposit a demand draft for the deficit amount of Rs.43, 77, 889.00. The respondent No.2 issued a memo dtd. 3/10/2020 rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under G.O.Ms.No.747 dtd. 18/6/2008 seeking regularization of their plot and directed them to submit Bank pass book and Aadhar card for verification and to process the refund of regularization amount. It is stated that before rejecting the application filed by the petitioners through memo dtd. 3/10/2020, the respondent No.2 addressed a letter dtd. 21/6/2018 to the Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad, Telangana requesting to verify the record as to whether there is any valid layout in respect of Plot No.4/A in Sy.No.62 of Madhapur Village consisting of park for taking further necessary action and to dispose of the application filed by the petitioners herein. 6. It is contended that the respondent No.2 without waiting for the report from the Commissioner, GHMC, whether there is any valid layout in respect of Sy.No.62 of Madhapur Village and Gram Panchayat arbitrarily issued the memo dtd. 3/10/2020. The petitioners herein filed an application dtd. 15/7/2013 before the Special Deputy Commissioner and Public Information Officer, Circle-11, Ranga Reddy Zone-respondent No.4 seeking information under the Right to Information Act as to whether tentative layout of the petitioners dtd. 3/11/1997 was approved or not. The respondent No.4 issued reply in letter No.C1/192/2013 dtd. 5/8/2013 informing the petitioners that tentative layout approved on 3/11/1997 was cancelled on 19/3/1999 due to non-submission of clearance from ULC authorities and the layout was not approved. 7. It is contended that the petitioners are in possession of the subject land. They have constructed a room for watchman purpose and obtained electricity connection. They had also been paying the property tax for the subject property bearing door No.1-89/3/A/1. 8. 7. It is contended that the petitioners are in possession of the subject land. They have constructed a room for watchman purpose and obtained electricity connection. They had also been paying the property tax for the subject property bearing door No.1-89/3/A/1. 8. It is stated that subsequently the State of Telangana issued G.O.Ms.No.92 dtd. 26/5/2016 calling for applications from the persons who are in possession of the property declared as surplus land under the ULC Act. The petitioners submitted application Nos.021600035516 and 021600035511. The applications of the petitioners were rejected by the respondent No.2 on 20/7/2022 stating that the subject property comes under the park area. 9. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Government Pleader for Assignment that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners did not challenge the earlier rejection memo dtd. 3/10/2020. In view of the said objection, the petitioners filed an application in IA.No.2 of 2023 for amendment of prayer. The said application was allowed by order dtd. 13/9/2023 permitting the petitioners to challenge the earlier memo of rejection dtd. 3/10/2020. 10. Mr. C. V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. K. Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the preliminary layout submitted by the petitioners was cancelled. Thus, it cannot be claimed by the respondent authorities that the subject plot is a park area. Learned senior counsel relied on the letter issued by HMDA dtd. 12/7/2013 and letter of GHMC dtd. 5/8/2013 whereunder it was informed to the petitioners under the Right to Information Act that the tentative layout approved on 3/11/1997 was cancelled on 19/3/1999 due to non-submission of clearance from the ULC authority. Thus, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel that as there is no valid layout in the eye of law, the alleged park area shown in the tentative layout, did not vest in the GHMC; that as per the relevant building regulations in force, the open spaces and parks have to be gifted to the local authority or GHMC as the case may be at the time of approval of layout, but for which they would not vest in the authority. 11. The case of the respondents is that the subject land admeasuring 1860 sq. yards is park area. The 21 plot holders of the layout developed by the petitioners have applied for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.455 and 456 dtd. 11. The case of the respondents is that the subject land admeasuring 1860 sq. yards is park area. The 21 plot holders of the layout developed by the petitioners have applied for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.455 and 456 dtd. 29/7/2002, which were regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.446 dtd. 9/4/2007. In the said layout, the subject plot, being claimed by the petitioners in this writ petition, was earmarked as park. The petitioners have jointly filed application under G.O.Ms.No.747, Revenue (UC.I) Department dtd. 18/6/2008 vide application No. F1/747/26266/2013 dtd. 28/12/2013 for regularization of land to an extent of 1860 sq. yards in Sy.No.62 situated at Madhapur Village. The said application was enquired by the Enquiry Officer and Deputy Inspector of Survey, Urban Land Ceiling, Ranga Reddy District, and it was reported that the subject land is falling in Park area as per combined location sketch prepared by the Assistant Director, Urban Land Ceiling. Hyderabad dtd. 12/2/2018. As the regularization of park area is not permissible, the application filed under G.O.Ms.No.747 dtd. 18/6/2008 was rejected vide Memo No.F/747/26166/2013 dtd. 3/10/2020. 12. It is stated that subsequently the petitioners have again filed applications under G.O.Ms.No.92 dtd. 26/5/2016 vide Application Nos.TSULCRO21600035516, TSULCR021600035518 and TSULCR02 1600035511 dtd. 20/7/2022. The Deputy Inspector of Survey O/o ULC, enquired into the matter with reference to the combined location sketch and submitted a report on 19/7/2022 stating that the applied area is open on ground comes under ceiling surplus land and covered in park area. The same was informed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division, vide office letter dtd. 20/7/2022, who in turn, reported to the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal, vide letter dtd. 4/2/2023 that the subject land is covered under the ceiling surplus land as per combined sketch and it is covered in park area. Hence all the three applications filed by the petitioners were rejected in the interest of Government. The petitioners are not entitled for any relief as the subject land is earmarked for park area (public place). 13. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment submitted that the petitioners did not have any legal right to claim regularization of the park area. Moreover, the subject plot is a surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Learned Government Pleader has drawn attention of this Court to the combined location sketch plan in CC.No.F1/4143/6(1)/2004. 13. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment submitted that the petitioners did not have any legal right to claim regularization of the park area. Moreover, the subject plot is a surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Learned Government Pleader has drawn attention of this Court to the combined location sketch plan in CC.No.F1/4143/6(1)/2004. It is submitted that the same layout was relied upon by the 21 plot holders, who purchased the plots from the petitioners. Learned Government Pleader referred to the Telangana Regularization of Unapproved and Illegal Layout Rules, 2015 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.151 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M1) Department dtd. 2/11/2015 and submitted that layout pattern has to be maintained while regularizing unapproved layout as per Rule 10(d) of the Rules, which reads as under: "10. Norms to be insisted for regularization of unapproved layouts: The Competent authority shall ensure the following minimum norms of layout for such layouts: (a).. (b).. (c).. (d) The layout pattern as afar as possible shall be retained ipso facto and only in exceptional cases like need for connectivity, integration with surrounding network, etc. modifications may be considered by the Competent Authority." 14. According to the learned Government Pleader for Assignment, even if one single plot is regularized under the above Rules, the entire layout pattern will be taken into account and all open spaces, parks, etc. shown in the layout will be retained. Learned Government Pleader also referred to relevant para (x) of G.O.Ms.No.747 dtd. 18/6/2008 and submitted that the Government is competent to reject an application for regularization of a particular plot or land if such regularization is not in public interest. The said provision reads as follows: "The Government shall be competent to refuse or reject any case of allotment of excess land, even though it otherwise satisfies all the conditions prescribed in this, order, if such allotment of excess land with or without structures thereon is not in public interest or if such land is required for a public purpose. The decision of the Government in this regard shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law. In cases where allotment is refused or rejected, the compensation amounts paid along with application shall be refunded without any interest to the applicant." 15. The decision of the Government in this regard shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law. In cases where allotment is refused or rejected, the compensation amounts paid along with application shall be refunded without any interest to the applicant." 15. In reply to the arguments of the learned Government Pleader for Assignment, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the subject involved in this writ petition is regularization under the ULC Act and not unapproved layout regularization. It is not specified as what is the public purpose that is defeated. The same is not a ground on which the impugned rejection dtd. 3/10/2020 was passed. The rejection order was only on the ground that the land is covered by park area as per the combined location sketch by presuming that the land is vested in the local authority (GHMC). As there was no unapproved layout and as the tentative layout, admittedly, was cancelled, the question of subject plot vesting in the Government or local authority (GHMC) does not arise. ANALYSIS: 16. The petitioner submitted application for regularization on two occasions viz. initially under G.O.Ms.No.747 dtd. 18/6/2008 and later under G.O.Ms.No.92 dtd. 26/5/2016. There is no dispute whatsoever that the Plot No.4/A, which is the subject matter in this writ petition, was shown as park area in the layout developed by the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that it is an unapproved layout. The petitioners have developed the layout with 21 plots and sold out the same. The 21 plot purchasers in the said layout have applied for regularization under G.O.Ms.Nos.455 and 456 dtd. 29/7/2002, which was approved vide G.O.Ms.No.466 dtd. 9/4/2007 regularizing their plots. At the time of regularization of plots of 21 plot purchasers, a combined location sketch was taken into consideration wherein the subject plot was shown as park. 17. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the park area did not vest in the GHMC as the tentative layout was cancelled. It needs to be mentioned that the subject land (park) along with 21 plots was declared surplus land under the ULC proceedings. The vendors of the petitioners were declared surplus holders and possession is said to have been taken under Sec. 10(6) of the ULC Act. So also it is not the case of the petitioners that the subject land was not declared surplus. The vendors of the petitioners were declared surplus holders and possession is said to have been taken under Sec. 10(6) of the ULC Act. So also it is not the case of the petitioners that the subject land was not declared surplus. It is vested in the Government as surplus land under the ULC Act and the petitioners chose to get the same regularized under G.O.Ms.No.747 dtd. 18/6/2008 and G.O.Ms.No.92 dtd. 26/5/2016. 18. As contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the respondents have not specifically mentioned in the impugned order that the regularization is rejected on the ground of public interest. However, it is evident from the memo dtd. 3/10/2020 that the application of the petitioners was rejected by invoking clause (x) of G.O.Ms.No.747 dtd. 18/6/2008, which empowers the Government to reject regularization on the ground of public interest or public purpose. Though the respondent No.2 has not explicitly referred to public interest involved in the impugned rejection memos, the same is implicit as clearly it is mentioned that the subject plot is shown as park area in the combined location sketch. 19. The issue in this writ petition is not related to layout regularization and the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is right in his contention that G.O.Ms.No.151 dtd. 2/11/2015 cannot be pressed into service by the learned Government Pleader for Assignment. It is clarified by the learned Government Pleader that reference to G.O.Ms.No.151 dtd. 2/11/2015 is made to explain before this Court the policy of the Government to retain the pattern of unapproved layout even if one or few plots in the layout is/are applied for regularization. 20. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader for Assignment that the petitioner has not made the 21 plot purchasers as parties to the writ petition whose interest will be adversely affected. They have got their plots regularized showing the subject plot as park area. However, in the opinion of the Court such contention may not be relevant here as the regularization of the subject plot, under the impugned memos, was rejected being park area and the petitioners do not have any vested right to seek regularization for the reason that the plot is vested in the Government as surplus land. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners could not have applied for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.92 dtd. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners could not have applied for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.92 dtd. 26/5/2016 when their earlier application for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.747 dtd. 18/6/2008 was rejected vide memo dtd. 3/10/2020. It is clear from Para 10 of G.O.Ms.No.92 dtd. 26/5/2016 that it was issued to facilitate public, who have not utilized the benefit of the order issued in the G.Os from time to time (G.O.Ms.Nos.455, 456 and 747). Interestingly, it is the petitioners who have developed the layout and shown the subject plot as park area and now they turn around and claim that it is not a park. The petitioners cannot be heard to say that the subject plot-park is not for public purpose or in public interest (benefit of the 21 plot purchasers and general public). Viewed from any angle the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. In view of the above observations, there are no merits in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.