THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.8152 of 2002 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners 14 in number seeking direction by way of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not initiating land acquisition proceedings and in not paying compensation to the petitioners for the lands which were utilized for widening of road covered by survey numbers 159, 161, 164, 168, 172, 181 to 185, 191, 192 and 193 admeasuring an extent of Acs.4.35 guntas situate at East Fort, Municipal Corporation, Warangal Town and District, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings. 2. As averred in the affidavit it is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of the land covered by survey numbers referred to above and there was existing 7 feet width cart track passing through the lands of the petitioners from Chinthalgandi to Hanuman Temple East Fort, Warangal. It is their case that the said cart track was widened to 60 feet to construct a road from Chinthalgandi to East Fort, so as to connect to Warangal City. It is their grievance that in spite of the fact that they were owners and possessors of the said land, without notifying their land for any public purpose, the possession of their land was taken illegally and arbitrarily and road was constructed. 3. Separate counter-affidavits are filed by the respondents. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, it is stated that 60 feet wide road was sanctioned, as per the sanctioned plan vide G.O. Ms. No.910 MA (Municipal Administration) dated 25-11-1971 from Chinthalgandi to East Fort. It is further stated that petitioners/land owners have utilized their agricultural lands to residential plots without obtaining any prior approval of the lay out from the competent authority and without paying the conversion charges as per G.O. Ms. No.51 MA (Municipal Administration), dated 05-02-1996 for the conversion of agricultural lands into non-agricultural lands. It is further stated that petitioners themselves have requested for laying of 60 feet road, as such the question of initiation of any land acquisition proceedings does not arise. Further, it is stated that land owners have already sold plots by registered sale deeds unauthorizedly in Sy.No.159 violating the statutory obligations. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Commissioner it is stated that the said road was constructed as per the implementation of the Master Plan prepared by the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. Having regard to pleadings referred to above, the only question, which arises for consideration, is Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation for the land, which was used for formation of the road. 6. It is to be noticed that even according to the respondents, the road was constructed in the year 1997. This Writ Petition is filed in 2002 seeking directions for issuance of initiation of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for the area covered by formation of 60 feet wide road from Chinthalgandi to Hanuman Temple East Fort, Warangal. As per the averments in the counter-affidavit on behalf of the Urban Development Authority, it is clearly stated that petitioners have utilized their agricultural lands to residential plots without obtaining prior lay out and approval from the competent authority. In view of the provisions under the Municipal Corporation Act and the lay out Rules to convert the agricultural land into non-agricultural land, the owner has to pay not only the conversion charges to the competent authority, but also has to obtain lay out approval from competent authority by paying the charges, which are applicable and by further leaving open spaces as required in the lay out rules. When it is pleaded by the respondents that the petitioners have converted their agricultural lands into residential plots without even approval and without leaving any area towards the formation of the roads, as required under law, they cannot claim any compensation on the ground that 60 feet road is formed from their lands. Having violated the provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act and the Rules framed thereunder by not obtaining permission for lay out and by utilizing the land for non-agricultural purposes without complying the statutory requirements, now the petitioners cannot turn round and seek directions for payment of compensation. Further, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Urban Development Authority, it is clearly pleaded that even 60 feet road was formed on the representation submitted by the petitioners, which averment is not disputed by the petitioners by filing any affidavit by way of reply. In that view of the matter, in view of the utilization of the lands in violation of the statutory provisions for conversion of the agricultural lands into non-agricultural lands and utilizing such land for ploting purposes, without seeking prior approval of the lay out from the competent authority and as the road is laid on the representation of the petitioners, they are not entitled for any directions from this Court, either for initiation of land acquisition proceedings or for payment of any compensation. The petitioners, having violated statutory provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act and the lay out rules, are not entitled for any directions in this Writ petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition for grant of relief as prayed for and the Writ Petition is devoid of merit. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 24th March, 2009 skmr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8152 of 2002 Between: 1 Gopu Sudarshan, S/o. Late Laxmaiah, R/o. East Fort, Warangal District. 2 Gopu Yadamma, W/o. Goverdhan, R/o. East Fort, Warangal District. 3 Totakuri Ravi Kumar, S/o. late T. Mallaiah, R/o. East Fort, Warangal District. 4 Totakuri Agaiah, S/o. T. Komuraiah, R/o. East Fort, Warangal District. 5 Chintapally Rani, w/o. Sadanandam, R/o. East Fort, Warangal District. 6 Nalivela Eshwaraiah, S/o. Lage N. Mallaiah, R/o. East Fort, Warangal District. 7 Bera Komuraiah, S/o. Late B. Kasinadham, R/o. East Fort, Warangal District. 8 Billa Sambaiah, S/o. Late Nimbaiah, R/o. East Fort, Warangal District. 9 A. Surynanarayana, S/o. Surynanarayana, R/o. East Fort, Warangal District. 10 Acha Abasyta, W/o. Narsaiah, R/o. East Fort, Warangal District. 11 Bandari Ravi, S/o. Late Komuraiah, R/o. East Fort, Warangal District. 12 Inumula Guruvaiah, S/o. Veeraiah, R/o. East Fort, Warangal District. 13 Inumula Papaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, R/o. East Fort, Warangal District. 14 Inumula Lingamurthy, S/o. Mallaiah, R/o. East Fort, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Municipal Corporation, Warangal, Rep. by its Commissioner, 2 Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal, 3 District Collector, Warangal, 4 Govt. of A.P.,, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad,. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ off Mandamus declaring that the action of respondents in not initiating land acquisition proceedings and in not paying compensation to the petitioners land in Sy,. No. 159, 161, 164, 168, 172, 181 to 185, 191, 192 and 193 to an extent of Ac. 4.35 gts. situated at East Fort, Municipal Corporation Warangal is highly arbitrary, bad, illegal and voilative of Articles 300--A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to initiate acquisition proceedings of the lands of the petitioners and pay compensation to them. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.VENUGOPAL REDDY The Court made the following :