IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THIS THE 29th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 W.P.No.28047 of 2009 Between: M/S.Bhagyanagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., rep by its Secretary P.Venkat Ram Reddy ... PETITIONER(S) and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.28047 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioner claims to have acquired Acs.167-00 of land in Sy.No.1007 of Kukatpally Revenue Village, got the layout regularized by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and divided the same into plots. Registered sale deeds have also been executed in favour of different persons. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is trying to lay a road across their plots in deviation the master plan applicable for that area. The petitioner made a reference to a tender notice issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation proposing to lay a 100 feet road from Hi-tech City Railway Station to Borabonda Railway Station. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that 100 feet road in the proposed area was indicated in the master plan and the steps are being taken to lay the road with a different alignment altogether. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, on instructions, submits that the Corporation would strictly adhere to the master plan in the matter of laying road from Hi-Tech City Railway Station to Borabanda. It is also stated that if any portion of the land or building owned by the petitioner is affected in laying the road, steps will be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. A copy of the master plan is placed before this Court. It shows the alignment of the proposed road from Hi-Tech City Railway Station to Borabanda. While the petitioner apprehends that the respondents would deviate from the road shown in the master plan, the respondents virtually denied the said allegation. Once the respondents state that they would lay the road strictly in accordance with the master plan, the apprehension of the petitioner stands allayed or at least becomes unfounded. Even otherwise, in case any portion of the land or building of the petitioner is affected in the process of laying road, the respondents would be under obligation to pay the compensation, as provided for under law. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 29th December 2009 CVRK