HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25714 of 2002 Date : 14.09.2009 Between : Ch. Venkata Krishna Rao. …..Petitioner And Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, rep. by its Commissioner. …..Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25714 of 2002 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondent-Corporation, to entertain the application filed by him along with the plan for the proposed construction in the site bearing R.S.No.141/5 of Patamata, Vijayawada, covered by L.P. No.32/92/VGT UDA. 2. Petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of 145.2 square yards of house site, equivalent to 121.40 square metres in R.S.No.141/5 of Patamata of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Limits. It is the case of the petitioner that with a view to make constructions over the said site, he intended to make an application along with the plan for approval, but they are not being received by the respondent-authorities on the ground that the site in question falls within the proposed 80 feet master plan road. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent- Corporation, it is stated that the petitioner has not at all approached the Corporation and no plan was submitted for approval, so as to examine the issue and to take a decision. 4. Though it is the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent-Corporation is not entertaining his application and the proposed plan on various grounds mentioned, but there is no material to show that the petitioner has submitted any application in this regard. In the absence of placing any such material before this Court, it is not possible to examine the plea of the petitioner for grant of any directions. But, during the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that subsequent to filing of this writ petition, during the year 2006, there was an amendment to the master plan, and there is a change in the alignment of the proposed 80 feet road in the master plan, as such, there cannot be any objection for grant of permission. 5. As much as no material is placed before this Court to show that the petitioner has submitted any application, I dispose of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to make a fresh application by complying with the requirements as per the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and if any such application is filed, respondents shall consider the same as per the existing master plan, and in accordance with law. 6. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th September 2009 ajr