IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.9656 of 2005 Between: B. Sakku Bai .. Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Its Director of Town and Country Planning, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad and 4 others .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is about the manner in which L.P.No.16 of 2002 issued in favour of the 3rd respondent by the 2nd respondent was likely to interfere with the property of the petitioner of an extent of 6066.94 square yards in Survey No.74, Pragathi Nagar, near Phulong River, Yellammagutta, Nizamabad, which fell to the share of the petitioner as a result of the final decree in O.S.No.69 of 1988 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. The petitioner had to file O.S.No.77 of 2000 for a perpetual injunction against one J. Mohan Rao and others when two bits of the land of the petitioner were attempted to be interfered with and the suit was decreed on 02-11-2001. When the defendants therein relied on a layout sanctioned by the respondents 1 and 2, a copy of the layout plan No.92/98 was obtained by the petitioner, which disclosed not only deviations from the alignment of the master plan, but also concerning the internal roads passing through the property of the petitioner. The petitioner represented to the respondents 1 and 2 immediately and on the representation dated 22-04-2000, no action was taken resulting in W.P.No.9674 of 2000 and C.C.No.321 of 2002. The revised layout in consequence was in L.P.No.16 of 2002 and the objections of the petitioner against L.P.No.16 of 2002 and L.P.No.55 of 2003 were not acted upon. Hence, the petitioner desired the deviations from the master plan and interference with her property be negatived by declaring the same to be illegal. The 1st respondent in his counter affidavit claimed to have kept the master plan in view, while approving the layouts strictly maintaining the road alignment without any deviation. The internal roads shown in S.No.74 in dotted lines were stated to be indicating only a suggested circulation pattern and the Municipal Commissioner, Nizamabad, could not respond to the remarks called for on the complaints of the petitioner. The 1st respondent further stated that the petitioner herself did not turn up for hearing before him in spite of notices and reminders and the internal road pattern was deleted in L.P.No.16 of 2002, while revising L.P.No.92 of 1998 which was communicated to the Municipal Commissioner on 03-04-2002. In respect of L.P.No.55 of 2003 also, the prescribed procedure has been followed and concerning the issuance of a certified copy of the master plan and the objections of the petitioner, it is for the executive authority to act and not the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent therefore, stated that in the absence of any executive power, which is vested with the executive authority, the 1st respondent cannot act further and he reiterated that the suggestive pattern of road shown in dotted lines is only a technical opinion for providing a better option and it is in the same alignment as approved by the Government. The 2nd respondent in his counter affidavit has stated that there were no violations of the master plan and the proposed 60 feet road was sanctioned in 1974 by the Government in S.No.74, while the internal road shown is only proposed road pattern to be developed in future if the petitioner develops her land in S.No.74 by making a layout. The 2nd respondent further stated that the approval of the special layouts was only after following the prescribed procedure and the allegations of the petitioner to the contrary are not true. The certified copy of the master plan can be obtained by the petitioner by making an application and paying necessary fees and hence, the 2nd respondent desired the writ petition to fail. The 3rd respondent in his counter affidavit stated that the petitioner has no cause of action against him and being the absolute owner and possessor of S.No.73 the construction and development works proposed by him in the layout therein are in accordance with the master plan. The encroachment over 3000 square yards of the water body by the 3rd respondent is denied and the building permission in respect of Plots 33 to 38 and 47 was made subject to the shifting of the electrical line. The roads shown in L.P.No.36 of 2004 are as per the layout plans and the 3rd respondent denied ever interfering with the rights of the writ petitioner in respect of her property. The constructions are being made in the lands of the 3rd respondent in accordance with the demarcation done by the Commissioner in I.A.No.769 of 2002 in O.S.No.116 of 2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. The 3rd respondent, therefore, desired the writ petition to fail. The primary grievance of the petitioner in respect of their land of an extent of 6066.94 square yards out of Ac.3.21 guntas in Survey No.74 being adversely affected by the layout plan sanctioned in favour of the 3rd respondent is with reference to the internal roads indicated in dotted lines in the layout plan covering her property. While such internal roads being shown in dotted lines in the property claimed by the petitioner is not denied by either respondent, they have made it clear in the counter affidavits that the internal roads shown in S.No.74 in the layout plan in dotted lines is only a suggested circulation pattern. While the 1st respondent had claimed to have asked the 2nd respondent to remedy the grievance of the petitioner in tune with the directions of this Court earlier, both the respondents denied any deviations from the master plan in the layout. While the 1st respondent claimed to be only rendering an advisory technical opinion to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent also made it clear that the internal roads shown in the petitioner’s land are only indicating the proposed road pattern, if the petitioner develops her land in S.No.74 in future making a layout. As the basis for the grievance of the petitioner thus stood answered by the counter affidavits of respondents 1 and 2, the layout Plan No.36 of 2004 relating to the 3rd respondent needs no interference in this writ petition, while the rights of the petitioner in her land in S.No.74 to an extent of 6066.94 square yards were stated on oath by the 3rd respondent to be not interfered with by him in any manner. In the light of the said statements of respondents 1 to 3 in their counter affidavits, nothing further survives for adjudication in this writ petition and this writ petition is closed. No costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-11-2012 Ksn