THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20732 of 2009 Date:19.04.2011 Between: S.Kullayappa and others ..... Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Dammalapati Srinivas Counsel for Respondent No.1: None appeared Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Palle Nageswara Rao standing counsel for Municipalities Counsel for Respondent No.3: Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel for Municipalities representing respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings appearing for respondent No.3. The petitioners are owners and possessors of house pproperties bearing door Nos.16-24, 22-455, 466, 23-15, 16-37 and 12/164. These houses are situated on the road from Damajipalli to Tadipatri within Dharmavaram town limits. They have filed the present writ petition feeling aggrieved by the purported attempt of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in seeking to widen the existing 60 feet road to 120 feet. In support of their apprehension that the respondents are seeking to widen the road, the petitioners have placed reliance on letter No.1669/TO/2009-10 dated 12.08.2009 addressed by respondent No.3 to various functionaries including the Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar, Dharmavaram. A perusal of this letter would show that in a meeting held by Dharmavaram M.L.A. with Municipal Chairperson, Revenue Divisional Officer, Municipal Commissioner and other Officers, it was decided to widen the existing 60 feet road up to 120 feet. Respondent No.3 has accordingly requested all the addressees to get the compound walls reconstructed at a distance of 60 feet from the central line of the road in order to widen the road by dismantling the existing compound walls of the Government offices in Dharmavaram to facilitate the widening of the road. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that as per the approved master plan of Dharmavaram town, the road in question is of the width of 60 feet and that unless the master plan is revised, no steps for widening of the road can be taken. In the counter-affidavits filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, it has been admitted that the width of the road under the approved master plan is 60 feet. Respondent No.2 has stated that as of now, there is no proposal to widen the road except to remove the encroachments on the existing road. However, respondent No.3 in his counter-affidavit stated that proposals for revising the master plan are being sent to respondent No.1 for increasing the width of the road to 120 feet and meanwhile, it was decided to widen the road wherever Government lands and structures are available and that decision to that effect was taken in the meeting held by the M.L.A. with the Revenue Divisional Officer, Municipal Commissioner etc., in pursuance of which letter dated 12.08.2009 was addressed by respondent No.3. As regards the stand taken by respondent No.2, that wherever there are encroachments, the said respondent is entitled to remove the same by following the procedure envisaged under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and the Rules made thereunder. However, with respect to the proposal of respondent No.3 to widen the road pending revision of the master plan, such a course is not permissible because no development can take place contrary to the master plan. Moreover, widening of the road at selective places does not ease the congestion of traffic. Such a course in the opinion of this Court is an exercise in futility. It would be appropriate for the respondents to get the master plan revised instead of venturing into widening of the road in a piecemeal manner, which may not achieve desired purpose. On the premises as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms. (1) Respondent No.2 is given liberty to remove the encroachments on the existing road after following due process of law. (2) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are restrained from interfering with the petitioners’ properties situated beyond 60 feet of the existing road unless and until the master plan of Dharmavaram is revised and the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules are followed for road widening. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order dated 24.09.2009 as extended on 15.10.2009 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.27012 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.3585 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th April, 2011 GHN