IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.5828 of 2008 Between: 1.Smt.Atluri Usha Rani and 3 others. ..... Petitioners AND VGTM Urban Development Authority, Rep.,by its Vice-Chairman-Managing Director at Vijayawada.and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri G.Ramachandra Rao for Sri G.Peddababu Counsel for Respondent No.1: Smt.K.Aruna, SC for VGTM Counsel for respondent No.2: Smt.G.Jhansi, SC for MCV The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in amending the master plan for Vijayawada Municipal Corporation area, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners, who are some of the residents of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation area, filed this Writ Petition choosing to assail the amendment of master plan on the apprehension that if the amended master plan is implemented, they may lose their properties in the road widening. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.674 MA, dated 29-12-2006, sanctioning the Zonal Development Plan, prepared by respondent No.1, under the provisions of the A.P.Urban Areas Development Act, 1975; that the negotiations are under progress with the owners of the properties, which are likely to be affected in the road widening for the proposed 80 feet road and; that if no amicable settlement is arrived at with the property owners, respondent No.2- Vijayawada Municipal Corporation will take up further steps for acquiring the land under Section 147 of the Hyderbad Municipal Corporation Act. It is further averred that as on date, there is no active proposal for acquiring the land and if the owners of the properties, which will be affected in the proposed road widening, do not agree for the concessions that can be allowed under GO.Ms.No.33, the proposals will be withdrawn for the time being. In the light of the above stand taken in the counter- affidavit, there is no immediate threat to the petitioners of losing their property under the proposed road widening. Therefore, the issues raised by the petitioners in this Writ Petition do not call for adjudication at this stage. One more aspect that has been noticed is that the petitioners failed to challenge G.O.Ms.No.674 MA, dated 29-12- 2006, under which the Zonal Development plan has been prepared. Unless the petitioners question the said GO, the issues raised by the petitioners in the present Writ Petition cannot be adjudicated. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the merits of any of the contentions raised by the petitioners, however, with liberty to them to avail appropriate remedy for redressal of their grievances, if, in future, the respondents propose to take away their properties for the purpose of road widening by respondent No.2- Corporation. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.7584 of 2008, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 23rd June, 2011 lur