HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7121 of 2004 Date : 07.09.2009 Between : M.Narsaiah & another. …..Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Municipal Administration & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7121 of 2004 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, seeking a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not allotting alternative land to the petitioners as per the undertaking given by the 2nd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to allot alternative land equivalent to the land which was taken possession from the petitioners, or to pay compensation for the land acquired from them. 2. Petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of a residential house bearing No.1-1-364/69, situated adjacent to the road leading from RTC Cross roads to Indira Park. It is their grievance that though part of their land was taken possession by the respondents for the purpose of road widening with an assurance for allotting equivalent land, respondents have failed to allot such land to compensate the petitioners. Further, it is their case that in the event of not allotting equivalent land, they are entitled for compensation to the extent of land, of which, they were deprived of, for the purpose of road widening. 3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the property of petitioners to an extent of 35.41 square yards, equivalent to 29.61 square metres in the premises bearing Municipal No.1-1-364/69, Jawaharnagar, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad, was acquired for road widening. It is further stated that the house of the petitioners was situated in a total area of 209.06 square yards, equivalent to 174.79 square metres, and that they were paid compensation for the structural value, and they have also availed the benefit notified by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.483, dated 24.08.1998, for constructing an extra area than the permissible area in the remaining piece of land. Subsequent to widening of the road, it is stated that the petitioners have filed an application for building permission on 15th of February 1999 for construction of ground floor with two shops with parking and three upper floors for residential purpose. The case of the petitioners was considered in the meeting held on 27th February 1999, and permission was granted, by extending the benefits contained in G.O.Ms.No.483, dated 24.08.1998. Accordingly, building plan was released by clearly mentioning that the road affected portion of 35.41 square yards was surrendered by the petitioners, and that they are not entitled for any other compensation for the said land. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioners, having availed the benefits available under G.O.Ms.No.483, dated 24.08.1998, are not entitled for any further compensation. 4. During the course of arguments, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for petitioners that they were given permission for construction of ground and three upper floors on the remaining piece of land, but it is submitted by the learned counsel that the said permission is granted by collecting the normal fee, as such, they are entitled for compensation for the land, which was taken possession for the purpose of road widening. In normal course, the petitioners are not entitled for construction of ground and three upper floors on the remaining piece of land, but by extending the benefits notified in G.O.Ms.No.483, dated 24.08.1998, they were granted permission for construction of ground floor with shops and park area, and three upper floors for residential purposes. As much as the petitioners were extended the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.483, dated 24.08.1998, they again cannot claim either any land or monetary compensation in lieu of the land acquired for road widening. Counter affidavit also clarify that compensation was ordered to be paid by an Award dated 21st of September 2007 to some persons whose lands were affected in road widening, but it is stated that those persons have not agreed for surrender of the land affected, as such, the petitioners cannot seek any benefit on par with such persons. 5. Once the petitioners have availed the extra benefits notified by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.483, dated 24.08.1998, and obtained construction permission, wherein there was an endorsement that they are not entitled for any further compensation for the acquired land, and having constructed the building with extra floors, again they cannot claim either substitute land or monetary compensation. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th September 2009 ajr