HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17976 of 2004 Date : 03.08.2009 Between : A. Raja Babu & 5 others. …..Petitioners And The Vice Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Hanamkonda & 2 others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17976 of 2004 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners, six in number, seek direction by way of Mandamus, to declare the action of respondent No.1 in allotting Plot No.25 to the 3rd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Petitioners claim that they are the owners of the residential sites in an unapproved layout. It is their grievance that in an area which is intended for laying of road in the master plan, same is converted into Plot No.25 and sold by the 1st respondent-Statutory authority in favour of the 3rd respondent. Precisely, it is the case of the petitioners that as much as the road portion is converted into a residential site by the 1st respondent and sold to the 3rd respondent, the said allotment is to be set aside. 3. The Vice-Chairman of Kakatiya Urban Development Authority has filed the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the said authority has prepared a layout plan in Survey No.1235 of Hanmakonda village in accordance with the layout rules, and after obtaining approval of the layout plan and the developed plan 46/2002, it has conducted auction by notifying the same in newspapers. It is stated that Plot No.25 of the layout plan is sold in favour of respondent No.3 as per the bids offered in the auction. While denying the allegation of the petitioners that the plot area which is covered by Plot No.25, is part of the road in any approved layout. It is stated that petitioners have purchased sites in an un- approved layout, which is prepared in violation of the layout rules. 4. In view of the allegations of the petitioners and having regard to the averments made in the counter affidavit, the only question which falls for consideration is, whether Plot No.25, which forms part of Survey No.1235 of Hanamkonda village, is shown as a road in any approved layout or not. 5. Even according to the petitioners, the plots, which they have purchased, are in an un-approved layout. Whether a particular area is covered by a road or not, is a matter, which is to be examined with reference to the layout prepared in the adjoining land. Though it is the allegation of the petitioners that the site in question is falling on the road, no material is produced before this Court to show that the said area is shown as a road in any approved layout. Merely because it is used as a road, the petitioners cannot claim it as a road, as a matter of right, unless it is shown as part of a road in any approved layout. Further, the averment of the respondents in the counter affidavit that the layout in which the petitioners have purchased the sites is an un-approved layout, is also not disputed by the petitioners by filing any additional affidavit. Having purchased the plots in an un-approved layout, and without showing that there exists a road in the place of Plot No.25 in the approved layout, the petitioners cannot make an allegaton that the road portion is being sold as a plot by the Urban Development Authority. In any event, in the approved layout, the said area is shown as a plot and the same is sold by following due procedure, by notifying the land in open auction, in which, the 3rd respondent has purchased it for a valuable consideration, for construction of a house. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in selling Plot No.25 in the approved layout prepared for Survey No.1235 of Hanamkonda Municipality, in favour of respondent No.3. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd August 2009 ajr