IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6455 of 2009 Between: 1 Neelam Ajit S/o. Sri Justice N. Sanjiva Reddy R/o. H.No.638, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 2 Dr. Vijaya Lakshmi D/o. Late Sri C. Govinda Reddy R/o. H.No.638, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 3 V. Kiranmai Reddy W/o. V. Madhukar Reddy R/o. H.No.638, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 4 V. Madhukar Reddy S/o. Late V. Janardhan Reddy R/o. H.No.638, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad, rep. by its Vice Chairman. 3 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner and Special Officer. 4 The Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad. 5 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the G.O.Ms.No.288, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (II) Department, dated 3.4.2008 and the appended notification with regard to Extensive modification carried out to the Master Plan of Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Area (excluding the erstwhile MCH area and the newly extended area of HUDA) in so far as item 106 of Annexure-II mentioned in 'D' i.e., other modifications of Appended notification issued by the 1st respondent which was published in A.P. Gazette extraordinary public issue of A.P. Gazette dated 4.4.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure contemplated under the provisions of A.P. Urban Area (Development) Act 1975 R/w Urban Areas Development (Hyderabad) Rules 1977 apart from violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set a side the same. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.RAVI SHANKAR JANDHYALA Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed questioning the validity of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.288, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (I1) Department, dated 03.04.2008, whereby and whereunder, modification to the master plan is approved. 2. Petitioners are the individual plot owners in the land covered by Survey No.24 of Peerancherurvu Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is their case that abutting their plots in Survey No.24, there is an existing road of 50’ width and if further road as proposed and approved in the impugned G.O. is allowed to be constructed, they will be deprived of their benefits as per G.O.Ms.No.902, MA & UD (M1), dated 31.12.2007, and G.O.Ms.No.113, MA, dated 31.01.2008, for regularization of their plots. 3. At the stage of admission, a counter affidavit is filed on behalf of The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, the second respondent herein. In para-6 of the counter affidavit, it is averred by the second respondent, to the extent relevant for disposal of writ petition, reads as follows. “The petitioners will get all the benefits as entitled under the said G.O.Ms.No.902 and 113. Further it is submitted that the plots which are abutting the existing the 50 feet road as per the layout and which is proposed as 100 feet road in the notified approved master plan vide G.O.Ms.No.288, MA, Dt.03.04.2008 would be entitled to certain benefits as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.279, MA, Dt.01.04.2008, if the land effected in the proposed road widening is surrendered free of cost. The said benefits will be given at the time of grant of permission for construction of building.” 4. In view of the above said submissions in the counter affidavit, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that as the respondents have acceded to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.902, MA & UD (M1), dated 31.12.2007, and G.O.Ms.No.113, MA, dated 31.01.2008, the petitioners are not inclined to pursue the writ petition. It is requested to dispose of the writ petition by recording the statement made by the 2nd respondent in the counter affidavit. 5. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioners, this writ petition is disposed of placing on record the statement made by the second respondent in the counter affidavit to the effect that the claim of the petitioners for regularization would be considered as per G.O.Ms.No.902, MA & UD (M1), dated 31.12.2007, and G.O.Ms.No.113, MA, dated 31.01.2008 by extending the benefits as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.279, Municipal Administration, dated 01.04.2008. 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th April 2009 ajr