THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 15348 of 2006 Oral order: The petitioner states that he purchased house bearing No. 74, MIG situated in Mamidipalem Housing Colony from A.P. Housing Board in 1988. As per the master plan, a 40’ wide road passes along his house, and that on the other side of the road, there exists respondent No.6-Polytechnic, which constructed a compound wall encroaching into the road by 20’. That the said 40’ road connect the by-pass road to Ongole town and the National Highway. By reason of construction of compound wall by respondent No.2-Polytechnic, by encroaching into the 40’ road by 20’, the petitioner states that the road in front of his house has been narrowed down to 20’ wide. The narrowing down of the road, the petitioner states, is causing congestion and affecting the free movement of traffic and vehicles, thereby resulting in undue hardship to the residents of the colony, the school going children and also the road users. The petitioner, therefore, states that they submitted representation dated 29.07.2005, got issued telegraphic message dated 09.03.3006 and legal notice dated 27.03.2006 requesting official respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to remove the encroachment made by respondent No.6-Polytechnicc and restore the road to its actual 40’ width, but it is the case of the petitioner that no action thereon had been taken by the respondents, to get the encroachment made by respondent No.6-Polytechnic of the road, removed. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking appropriate directions to the respondents to remove compound wall constructed by respondent No.6-Polytechnic by encroaching the 40’ wide road. This Court admitted the writ petition on 28.07.2006 and ordered issuance of notice to the respondents. Thereafter, the matter came to be listed on 16.06.2010, and on that day, at the request of the learned Stating Counsel for A.P. Housing Board and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality, granted two weeks time to get instructions. As no proper instructions are obtained by the counsel, on 30.06.2010, this Court directed the appearance of respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5, on 14.06.2010, for resolving the dispute, and as directed, they appeared in person and also filed counters. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for respondent No. 6. Respondent No.2-Municipality filed counter stating that the Housing Board though as per the master plan, in the layout had shown 40’ road, but on reality it had left only 20’ road. Respondent No.6 did not encroach the road, the compound wall constructed by respondent No.6-Polytechnic, which the petitioner contends, was constructed encroaching 20’ of the 40’ road, belongs to respondent No.6- Polytechnic. The said compound wall, respondent No.2 states was constructed by respondent No.6-Polytechnic, even before sanction of layout. He further stated that the road in front of the petitioner’s house is only 20’, which on the other side, is bordered by the compound wall of respondent No.6-Polytechnic. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5-Housing Board filed counter stating that as per the Ongole Town Master Plan, there exists a 40’ wide road, passing along the house o the petitioner. The width of the road is reduced from MIG House No. 80 onwards, and this they contend is because as per the Ongole Town Master Plan, part of the said road belongs to A.P. Housing Board and the other part of the road is in possession of respondent No.6-Polytechnic. That they have formed the road in their land as per the Master Plan and the approved layout, and thereafter handed over the possession thereof to respondent No.2- Municipality, which is now in possession thereof. The balance road has to be laid in the land that is in possession of respondent No.6- Polytechnic, and that is possible only if respondent No.2-Municipality takes up the matter with respondent No.6-Polytechnic. It is stated that if as per the mater plan and approved layout, there is no 40’ road in front of the house of the petitioner, it is the duty of respondent No.4- Municipality to see that the road is maintained at 40’, and they have nothing to do with the road or its widening. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for respondent No.1, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Municipality, the learned Government Pleader for respondent No., the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5- Housing Board, and perused the original record, produced by respondent No.2-Municipality, containing the application made by Housing Board, for sanction of the layout, A perusal of the layout submitted by respondent Nos. 4 and 5- Housing Board for sanction, and which is sanctioned by respondent No.2, would indicate that there exists a 40’ road in front of the house of the petitioner, and it is as per this approved layout, respondent Nos. 4 and 5-Housing Board have sold the plot to the petitioner and others. However, presently, there exists only 20’ road in front of the petitioner. The map produced by respondent No.2-Municipality discloses that only 26’ wide road exists in front of the house, and the balance 14’ road exists, behind and within the compound wall of respondent No.6- Polytechnic. As respondent Nos. 4 and 5-Housing Board have sold the plot to the petitioner and others showing 40’ wide road passing in front of their houses, it is their duty to provide the same. However, it is the specific case of respondent Nos. 4 and 5-Housing Board, that respondent No.2-Municipality approved the layout in the year 1988, wherein they have earmarked 40’ wide road in front of the house of the petitioner and others, and it is their further case that respondent No.2- Municipality, having approved the layout, it is their bounden duty to provide and maintain the roads/open spaces, as per the approved layout and master plan, particularly when the stand vested in them. However, respondent No.2 contends that some mistake had occurred in verifying the availability of the land earmarked for the 40’ wide road in front of the house of the petitioner and others. The power to approve the layouts is vested in respondent No.2-Municipality. When once they approve the layout, the roads/open spaces earmarked in the layout, for communal purpose, stand vested in respondent No.2- Municipality. Therefore, before sanctioning the layouts, it is the bounden duty of respondent No.2-Municipality, to inspect the land, and ensure that the plotting, roads/open spaces are carved out and exist, as per the layout submitted for approval, and then sanction the same. Therefore, respondent No.2-Municipality, cannot contend that due to mistake of their officials, the present situation has arisen. Admittedly, due to lapses on the part of the officials of respondent No.2- Municipality, the 40’ is reduced to 20’, and as a result thereof, the petitioner and other residents of the colony, are suffering from choking of the road in front of their house. Since as per the master plan and the approved layout, there exists 40’ wide road passing along the house of the petitioner, and having regard to the fact, there is an obligation on the part of respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5, to provide and maintain the roads/open spaces, as per the approved layout and master plan, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 are directed to maintain the 40’ road along the house of the petitioner, if necessary, by acquiring the land in possession of respondent No.6-Polytechnic by holding negotiations and paying compensation to them, as early as possible. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 15th July, 2010 KSR