THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11514 OF 2009 Dated 25th November, 2009 Between: Ponnam Rajagopala Rao …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development and three others …Respondents The Court made the following ORDER: Though interlocutory applications are listed for hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in taking steps for allotting/alienating site admeasuring 33 feet situated towards the southern side of petitioner’s Plot No.99, Teachers’ Colony, Patamata, Vijayawada, which is earmarked as public road in the revised layout LP No.33/2008/VJA in File No.Rc-C8-10350/2008, dated 18.09.2008, in favour of the fourth respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the owner of the residential site covered by Plot No.99 admeasuring 312.05 square yards situated in approved layout LP No.58/79 at Teachers’ Colony, Patamata, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Towards the southern side of the petitioner’s site, as per the original layout, there was a 80 feet wide public road. Thereafter, the original layout was revised through revised layout LP No.33/2008/VJA and the width of the road was reduced from 80 feet to 33 feet. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the leftover portion of 33 feet is a public road as per the approved layout, but the third respondent Corporation is taking steps for allotting the said piece of land to the fourth respondent, which is not tenable. Separate counter-affidavits are filed by the respondents. In the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent, while generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that they are taking steps for allotting the site in question to the fourth respondent in lieu of acquisition of his site for the purpose of road widening at a different place. It is further stated that the 33 feet wide road, which is towards the southern side of the petitioner’s plot, is not useful to any of the plot owners except to the petitioner. Therefore, it submitted a revised proposal to the second respondent-Urban Development Authority duly proposing for deletion of the 33 feet wide road from the revised layout L.P.No.33/2008/VJA to facilitate the allotment of the said land in favour of the fourth respondent. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that when the further revised proposals were sent by the third respondent for deletion of the 33 feet wide road from the revised layout L.P.No.33/2008/VJA, they have rejected the said proposals and informed the same to the third respondent through their Office Letter No.C8/10350/08 dated 15.06.2009. In the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, it is stated that the third respondent is proposing to allot the site in question in his favour in exchange of his valuable land, which is proposed to be acquired for the purpose of road widening for the implementation of the master plan. From the contents of the counter-affidavits filed by respondents 2 to 4, it is clear that the site in question, which is proposed to be allotted, is earmarked as a road portion in revised layout L.P.No.33/2008/VJA. If that be so, when the proposals of the third respondent for deletion of the said site as road portion from L.P.No.33/2008/VJA were rejected by the second respondent, the said piece of land continues to be a road portion as per the approved layout. In view of the same, the site in question cannot be allotted to the fourth respondent or to any other person. For the aforesaid reasons, I dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents not to allot the site in question so long as the same is shown as a road in the approved layout. However, it is made clear that against the rejected proposals, it is open for the third respondent to pursue any other remedy available to it under law. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 25th November, 2009 vrn