HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10000 of 2007 Date:30.08.2011 Between: Dindi Kanakaveni ..... Petitioner AND Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Reptd by its Commissioner, Vijayawada and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri D.Hanumanth Rao Counsel for Respondents : Smt G.Jhansi Standing Counsel for Vijayawada Municipal Corporation The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in putting up flag post for acquiring 150 square yards of land from the petitioner’s property as part of 20 feet road widening of the Crombay road exclusively from the eastern side instead of acquiring 10 feet each on the eastern and western sides of the Crombay road, despite availability of land on the western side, as illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land admeasuring 677.6 square yards forming part of residential plot bearing No.76-14-169, Crombay road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada. Her grievance is that while acquiring the land for road widening from 80 feet to 100 feet, the respondents have resorted to acquiring land only on one side of the road resulting in denying the petitioner of the land to the width of 20 feet. The petitioner also challenged the action of the respondents in seeking to utilise her land either without her consent or without initiating the proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner of respondent No.1-Corporation, wherein it is inter alia stated that with a view to obtain the consent of the owners of the affected properties, a meeting was held by the officials of the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and that, all the owners whose lands were getting affected have given their consent orally and permitted the Corporation to mark the affected portions. It is further stated that accordingly, the affected portions were identified by the Corporation; that the Corporation is also giving additional Floor Space Index (for short ‘F.S.I.’) certificates to all the affected persons in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.33, MA, dated 03.02.2011 and that, an additional F.S.I. certificate was given to the petitioner. During one of the hearings of the case, when learned counsel for the petitioner seriously disputed the handing over of F.S.I. certificate to his client, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents sought for an adjournment to enable his client to file an additional counter- affidavit in that regard. Accordingly, an additional counter- affidavit was filed by the Commissioner of respondent No.1- Corporation, wherein it is inter alia stated that a mistake has crept in the earlier counter-affidavit regarding handing over of F.S.I. certificate to the petitioner. It is explained that the petitioner through her letter dated 11.03.2011 has requested respondent No.1 to issue the TDR bond for the site affected under road widening for the entire land and that the petitioner has addressed another letter, dated NIL, received by respondent No.1 on 03.06.2011, to hand over the TDR bond to one Sri I.Suresh Kumar since she is residing outside the state of Andhra Pradesh and expressing her readiness to withdraw the Writ Petition on receipt of the TDR bond. On the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned for filing a reply-affidavit by the petitioner. Having regard to the serious dispute regarding addressing of the two letters by the petitioner, this Court felt it appropriate to direct the personal presence of the petitioner. Accordingly, the case was adjourned. Today, at the hearing, Smt Dindi Kanakaveni-the petitioner is personally present. She has also filed a reply- affidavit. In her reply-affidavit, the petitioner while stating that she has not given consent for taking over her land in lieu of the concessions provided under G.O.Ms.No.33, MA, dated 03.02.2011, also averred that she is not aware of the issuance of TDR bond and that no notice was issued to her for taking her land. Learned Standing Counsel for Vijayawada Municipal Corporation representing the respondents has placed before the Court the record, which contains the purported letter, dated 11.03.2011 and another undated letter, sent in the name of the petitioner. In the letter, dated 11.03.2011, written in Telugu, it was stated that respondent No.1 has taken a decision to widen the road through the petitioner’s land admeasuring 677.6 square yards; that a part of her land was affected by the road widening; and that the respondents may give her TDR bond in proportion to the site which is utilised in the road widening. A copy of document of title in respect of the said land was also enclosed to the said letter. In the second letter, which is undated, also in Telugu, a reference to the earlier request for issuance of TDR bond was made. It is further stated that as respondent No.1 has agreed to issue TDR bond, she is intending to withdraw the Writ Petition and that, as she is residing outside the state of Andhra Pradesh, she is deputing one Sri I.Suresh Kumar whose signature is also purportedly attested. At the hearing, when these two letters were placed before the petitioner, she has admitted to have sent letter dated 11.03.2011. She has, however, denied the second letter. With the admission by the petitioner of the letter, dated 11.03.2011, and the readiness of respondent No.1 to issue TDR bond in lieu of taking a part of the petitioner’s site, the whole issue raised in the Writ Petition ceases to exist. Even if the second letter is denied by the petitioner, that hardly has any relevance because respondent No.1 has not so far released the TDR bond in the name of Sri I.Suresh Kumar, who is purported to have been authorised by the petitioner to receive such bond. Learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents has submitted that respondent No.1 is prepared to release the TDR bond to the petitioner as and when she approaches respondent No.1-Corporation. For the above-mentioned reasons, there is no necessity to adjudicate the Writ Petition on merits with the acceptance by the petitioner to receive the TDR bond in lieu of the respondents taking over a part of her property. The petitioner is permitted to approach respondent No.1 in person or through her authorised representative for receiving the TDR bond. If and when the petitioner approaches the respondents shall immediately release the TDR bond to her or to her authorised person. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.12687 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30thAugust, 2011 dr