THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19650 OF 2011 Dated: 25.07.2011 Between: Datla Thirupathi Raju and another … Petitioners AND Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and another …. Respondents … Respondents This Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19650 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioners claim to be the owners of house bearing No.4-30 situated in survey No.32/8 of Akkireddypalem Village, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. It is stated that out of 484 square yards of the land in the above said premises, certain portion was utilised by the 1st respondent Corporation for the purpose of road widening and the petitioners are left with only 245 square yards. It is pleaded that the petitioners land was used for formation of the road without following due process of law and without any compensation and therefore, they made a representation dated 11.09.2008 requesting the 2nd respondent for granting setback relaxation. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent called for the remarks from the 1st respondent and accordingly, by letter dated 28.11.2008, the 1st respondent recommended consideration of the request of the petitioners. On the basis of the same, the 2nd respondent, by memo dated 02.02.2009 permitted the 1st respondent to take the further action as proposed by the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the 1st respondent by letter dated 05.10.2009 called upon the petitioners to submit a relinquishment deed in favour of the Corporation for the site utilised for the formation of the road. The petitioners by detailed representation dated 16.01.2011 while expressing their consent for relinquishing the land in question in favour of the Corporation made a request for approval of the building permission in terms of G.O.Ms.No.33, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M2) Department, which provided for granting additional FAR. Since the said request of the petitioners has not been considered, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent, is arbitrary and illegal. Sri N.Ranga Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel, who accepted notice for the 1st respondent on instructions stated that the representation of the writ petitioners would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law. Having regard to the statement of the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, no further enquiry is necessary and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 16.01.2011 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 25.07.2011 Ivd