IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21325 of 1999 Between: Smt. P. Nagaratnamala W/o Venkateswara Rao R/o Vadlamudi, Guntur Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of A.P. rep. by Prl. Secretary H.M.A. & U.D.A. Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Vijayawada, Guntur & Technical & Tenali Urban Dev. Authority, rep. by Vice Chairman Governorpet, Vijayawada 3 Sri Uppaluri Ramalinga Koteswarao S/o Sobhandri Mian Road, Kanuru Penamaluru (M), Krishna Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent bearing Lr.No.16738/98-1 MA dt: 31-7- 98 and consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent beearing RC.C8-1950/99 dt: 4-9-99 as illegal and unjust and voilative of Art.14 & 300-A of the Constitution of India besides being total lack of jurisdiction and direct the respondnet No.2 to sanction the plan in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of making construction in RS.No.241/4 of Kanuru (V) of Penamaluru (M) Krishna Dist. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.S.R.ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21325 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of a site admeasuring 429 square yards in R.S.No.241/4 of Kanuru Revenue Village of Krishna District, which is now said to be within the limits of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. The village is also within the limits of Vijayawada, Guntur & Tenali Urban Development Authority, 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner submitted an application to the 2nd respondent on 17.02.1999 with a request to accord permission for construction of a building on the site. On the northern side of the plot of the petitioner, there is a 100 feet road and on the western side, there is a 16 feet lane, which serves as an internal road to few plots inside the lay out. The length of the lane is said to be 35 meters. The 3rd respondent, who is the owner of the site, which is at the dead end of the 16 feet lane intended to construct a multi storied residential complex. The 2nd respondent sought clarification from the 1st respondent as to the minimum width of the approach road. Through their letter, dated 31.07.1998, the 1st respondent clarified that the existing 16 feet lane must be widened to 30 feet, by requiring the owners of the sites on either side, to leave equal extents. Taking into account the letter, dated 31.07.1998, the 2nd respondent returned the plan of the petitioner through proceedings dated 04.09.1999 with an endorsement that she must give a set back of 7 feet in future widening of the 16 feet lane to 30 feet. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the condition. The writ petition is filed challenging the same. After the writ petition was filed, certain changes have taken place. The 1st respondent appears to have issued certain orders relaxing the zonal regulations vis-à-vis the 3rd respondent. This Court required the 1st respondent to file a counter affidavit explaining the circumstances that led to the grant of relaxation. Ultimately, it emerged that the 1st respondent revised its earlier stand and issued letter dated 14.11.2000 directing that there is no necessity to widen the existing 16 feet lane into 30 feet. This is said to be on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent. Counter affidavits are also filed in this regard. Hears Sri V.S.R.Anjaneylu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for respondent No.1, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri P.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3 The grievance of the petitioner was only as regards the imposition of the condition of setting apart a strip of 7 feet on the western side of her plot for the purpose of widening the 16 feet lane into 30 feet. Except that, no other reason is indicated in the impugned memo, dated 04.09.1999. This in turn was necessitated on account of the directions issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent through their letter, dated 31.07.1998. In view of the further development, viz., the 1st respondent addressed, letter dated 14.11.2000 to the 2nd respondent clarifying that it is not necessary to widen the existing 16 feet road, the condition imposed in the impugned proceedings, dated 04.09.1999, becomes redundant. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has to examine the application of the petitioner afresh. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 2nd respondent shall consider the application of the petitioner and pass fresh orders within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 18.12.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMD} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21325 of 1999 Date: 18.12.2008 JSU