IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8446 of 2010 Between: G. Vani … Petitioner And Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Rep., by its Metropolitan Commissioner, Begumpet, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D. Prakash Reddy, Sr. Counsel for Sri C. Srinivas Baba Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri M. Dhananjay Reddy SC for HMDA Counsel for respondents 2&3: Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy SC for GHMC Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri Mohd. Adbul Mujeeb This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8446 of 2010 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings No.139/TP/NZ/GHMC/2007, dated 18.08.2008, of respondent No.3. The petitioner sought for a declaration that she is entitled to proceed with the construction in terms of proceedings in Lr.No.8730/P4/Plg/HUDA/2007, dated 11.02.2008, of respondent No.1. The dispute in this Writ Petition lies in a narrow compass. By the impugned proceedings, dated 18.08.2008, respondent No.2 has rejected the petitioner’s application for granting permission for construction of a building comprising cellar, stilt plus four upper floors in premises bearing Plot No.176 (A-8) in Sy.No.218/1/2 at Air Force Officers Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Vayupuri, Malkajgiri. The said proceedings were issued after respondent No.1 has given technical sanction vide its letter, dated 11.02.2008, which was preceded by its earlier proceedings, dated 06.01.2008, whereby the said technical sanction was given subject to several conditions. In the impugned rejection order of respondent No.2, two grounds have been mentioned for rejecting the petitioner’s application, namely; that the HUDA sanctioned plan has not shown the road affected portion of 4.90 meters and that the open space belonging to GHMC is claimed by the petitioner in respect of which Writ Petition No.2599 of 2008 is pending. At the hearing, it is agreed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the said Writ Petition is no longer pending. With the disposal of the said Writ Petition, which was the subject matter of Writ Appeal No.306 of 2008, which was also disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 03.07.2009, the second ground is no longer in existence. As regards the first ground of rejection, there is a dispute as to the existing width of the road. While it is the case of the petitioner that as per the master plan 150 feet road is already in existence, respondent No.1 in the counter affidavit maintained that the existing road is only to an extent of 118 feet. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has not disputed that if the existing road is not expanded to its full width, as envisaged in the master plan, his client is prepared to leave the space to the extent required to maintain 150 feet wide road. Since this aspect requires to be decided on the basis of physical measurement, it is not possible for this Court to render a finding thereon. Respondent No.2 is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and the officials concerned of respondent No.1 and thereupon measure the width of the existing road in the presence of both the parties. If respondent No.2 finds that the width of the existing road falls short of the prescribed 150 feet width, as envisaged in the master plan, it shall communicate the same to the petitioner on which the latter is permitted to file revised plans in order to make up the short fall in the open space required for maintaining 150 feet wide road. Respondent No.2 shall complete this exercise within a period of one month from today. This order will not prevent respondent No.4 from pursuing the litigation, which is stated to be pending before the civil Court regarding the ownership and title over the land in question. Subject to the above directions the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.10867 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.08.2011 ES