IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15033 of 2007 Between: Gatla Venkata Narsaiah S/o. Gangaram R/o. H.No. 3-3-107, Patel Road, Hanumanwada, Korutla, M.R. Korutla, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, Rep. by its Project Director, H.No. 1-3-594, Road No. 6 Shastry Nagar (South, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 2 Municipal Council, Korutla , M.R. Korutla, Karimnagar District, Rep. by its Commissioner. .....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 a writ, order or directiion more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to consider the application for construction of shop-cum-House in the site covered by dismantled house No. 5-1-232, on P.W.D. Road, Jagtial to Nizamabad at Korutla Municipality, Karimnagar District taking into consideration the letter No. DB/T2/NHP/2006-07 /1408 dt.31-3- 2007 of Executive Engineer (R & B) N.H. Division, Perkit by setting aside the orders in Notice No. G/905/2007 dt. 22-6-2007 passed by 2nd Respondent herein and pass such other order or orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: M.V.KINI&CO. ADVOCATES &SOLICITORS The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Gatla Venkata Narsaiah assailing the action of the Municipal Council, Korutla-2nd respondent in issuing rejection notice No.G/905/2007, dated 22.06.2007. 2. The petitioner is owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 42 ½ sq. yards comprising Survey No.85 (Abadi), on the P.W.D. Road, Jagtial to Nizamabad. He purchased the land under registered sale deed dated 22.08.1978 for Rs.4,000/- He applied to the Municipal Council, Korutla-2nd respondent for permission for construction of shop-cum-house in the said land. The Municipal Council, Korutla-2nd respondent granted permission for construction of shop-cum-house by sanctioning the plan of the proposed construction vide proceedings in G/517/95, dated 22.04.1995. The width of the road abutting the land has been shown as 51 feet from the centre. He dismantled the house bearing No.5-1-232 and accordingly, 2nd respondent issued a Certiﬁcate in File No.A/851/2007, dated 04.06.2007. He paid the property tax for the said shop-cum-house bearing No.5-1-232 on 30.03.2007 for the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007. He filed an application in Appendix-A under Rule A(1) under Section 209 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 seeking permission for construction of shop-cum-house in the site covered by the dismantled shop-cum-house bearing No.5-1-232. The Municipal Council, Korutla-2nd respondent under Notice No.G/905/2007, dated 22.06.2007 rejected the application. According to the petitioner, rejection of his building permission by 2nd respondent is not legal and proper. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 16.7.2007. 1st respondent ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that no part of N.H-16 coming from Nizamabad to Jagdalpur has been handed over to 1st respondent for four lining purpose. For better appreciation I may refer para 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under: “ 10. I submit that implementation of project work for the rest of the stretch i.e. from Km. No.175 to Km.nO.367 of National Highway No.7 running from Nagpur to Hyderabad is under diﬀerent stages of acquisition and ﬁnalisation. However, no part of National Highway No.16 running from Nizamabad to Jagdalpur has been handed over to the answering respondent for four laning purpuse. In fact National Highway No.16 has not been included in any one of the phases of National Highways Development Programme. 11. It is respectfully submitted that National Highway No.16 is still under control and management of State P.W.D. (R&B) Department. Therefore, the answering respondent is no way concerned with the subject road and as such the answering respondent is not necessary party to the present writ petition.” 4. When the writ petition came up for admission hearing with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for ﬁnal disposal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent submits that as on this day the road has not been handed over to 1st respondent. He further submits that N.H.16 has not been included in any one of the phases of the National Highway Development Programme. 7. The 2nd respondent rejected the building permission application of the petitioner on the ground that the road width of national highway is 200 feet and from the center of the road it should be 100.00 feet. For better appreciation I may refer the text of the rejection notice No.G/905/2007, dated 22.6.2007. For better appreciation I may extract the rejection notice, which reads as under: “ You are hereby informed that your application for construction of shops in the premises of H.NO.5-1-232 of Korutla Municipality adjacent to N.H.No.16 (Nizamabad to Jagdalpur) hereby rejected due to following reasons: 1) That road width of N.H.No.16 is 200-0’, and from the center of the road it should be 100-0’. 2) Your property that shown in the application vide ref (1) i.e. H.No.5-1-232 is totally eﬀected under the said road margin of the H.No.16. Therefore you are hereby informed that your application for construction of shops in the premises of H.No.5-1-232 of Korutla Municipality is rejected and no construction should take place in the said effected area.” 8. Indisputably as on this day the width of the road is 100 feet and more precisely the width of the road from the center is about 50 feet. This is explicit from the letter emanating from the Executive Engineer (R&B), N.H.Division, Perkit to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korutla, which reads as under: “ With reference to the subject cited you are hreby informed that the road boundary from Km 72/0 to 75/0 is 50-00’ (ﬁfty feets from center of the road i.e. total right of way is 100’00 or 30.00 meters). Further the set backs are to be maintained as per Municipal Corporation norms beyond the road boundary.” 9. It is evident from the counter aﬃdavit of 1st respondent that N.H.16 is still under the control and management of State P.W.D. (R&B) Department. The existing width of the road as per the letter of the Executive Engineer (R&B) is 50 feet from the center of the road. Such is the situation, rejection of the building permission application by 2nd respondent on the ground that the width of the road from the center is 100 feet cannot be justified. 10. Accordingly, rejection notice is set aside directing the 2nd respondent to re-consider the building permission application treating the width of the road from the center as 50 feet and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. NO costs. 28th August, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) cc in one week. tnb ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.15033 OF 2007 28TH AUGUST 2008.