THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25245 of 2007 Date: 31.01.2008 Between: Set Parasmal Jain And others … Petitioners AND The Commissioner, Tanuku Municipality West Godavari & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for respondents : S.Nageswar Reddy, Standing Counsel HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25245 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in taking steps to dispossess the petitioners from the part of property bearing Door No.33-1-7, Rashtrapathi Road, Tanuku, West Godavari district without re-course to law and without invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The petitioners are the owners and possessors of building bearing Door No.33-1-7 (Old 33-40) of Tanuku Municipality. The building was originally constructed in the year 1985 with ground and 1st floor as per the approved plan. The petitioners approached the respondent-Municipality for sanction of building plan for raising 2nd floor. The petitioners evidently agreed to surrender a part of their premises for the purpose of road widening by the respondent by execution of a bond on a stamp paper. When the respondent sought to take over the said portion of the land for the purpose of road widening, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. Sri K.Sairam, Commissioner of the respondent Municipality filed a counter affidavit. It is averred inter alia that when the petitioners applied for sanction of building plan for raising 2nd floor, they gave consent for handing over a part of their premises free of cost for the purpose of road widening by the respondent and that undertakings were made and signed by the petitioners on the approved plan bearing B.A.No.165/2001/G1, dated 25.10.2001 and B.A.No.166/ 2001/G1, dated 29.10.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent obtained their signatures on blank Rs.100 stamp papers and that they have not given their consent voluntarily. I am unable to appreciate this contention. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are illiterates and are not conscious of their legal rights. If the petitioners were not willing to part with their land free of cost, it would have been open to them to decline to sign on the undertakings. Sri S.Nageshwar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel placed before me G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 15.1.1998 issued by the Government which envisaged that where road widening programmes are taken up in the State by the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities, they are empowered to sanction additional FSI to the extent of land given free of cost by the owners of the properties who seek sanctioning of building permissions. The petitioners by executing the undertakings that they will handover the land free of cost admittedly got the benefit of additional FSI and in my considered view it is not open to them to turn round later on the vague and un-substantiated plea that they have signed on the blank papers. It is also of relevance to note that the petitioners have not challenged the validity of G.O.Ms.15 dated 15.1.1998 under which additional FSI was sanctioned to the petitioners on their giving undertakings to part with a part of the land free of cost for road widening purpose. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not see any justification to grant the relief sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.32927 of 2007 filed by the petitioners seeking interim relief is also dismissed. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:31.01.2008 mdaa