IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18887 of 2004 Between: Smt Kotti Pushpavathi. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA), Secunderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18887 of 2004 ORDER: No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is the owner of a house bearing No.2-3-703/2/C, admeasuring 664 sq.yards, situated at Amberpet, Hyderabad, seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to exempt her house from the industrial use zone. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner has entered into a development agreement on 31.05.2004 with M/s.Shakya Constructions, a partnership firm, to develop the above said property by constructing residential apartments. It is stated that when the developer persuaded the matter, a letter, dated 17.06.2004, was issued by the respondents authority, stating that the area in question, where the above said property is situated, is an industrial use zone, as per the rules and regulations notified under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas {Development} Act, 1975 (for short ‘the Act’). Pleading that there are residential houses in and around the above said property, the petitioner seeks a direction for exemption of the same from the industrial use zone. Under the provisions of the Act and the regulations made there under, the petitioner can seek modification of the plan, by filing appropriate application, under Section 12 of the Act. But, there is no power vested with the development authority to exempt a particular area from the notified zonal development plan. As per Section 12 of the Act, the Government is the competent authority to make modifications to the plan. However, in this case, the Government is not even made as a party. Even according to the petitioner, she did not file any application seeking modification as such. In that view of the matter, the relief, as sought for by the petitioner, cannot be granted. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioner from making appropriate application to the competent authority for modification of the zonal development plan. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J Date:12.08.2009 p sj