THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9233 of 2009 ORDER: The family comprising of the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 and certain others owned extent of land in Survey No.220, located at Seelam Veeraraghavaiah street, Kanuru Revenue Village, Penumulur Mandal, Krishna District. It was partitioned in the year 1967 and an extent of Ac.0.09 cents has fallen to the share of the petitioner. The Village has since become part of Vijayawada, Guntur and Tenali Urban areas, respondents 2 and 3 have submitted application to the first respondent, Vijayawada, Guntur and Tenali Urban Development Authority, Governorpeta, with a prayer to accord permission to construct a building over the land that has fallen to their share. The petitioner states that there is a clear recital in the partition deed to the effect that a common passage must be left in the land that is divided among the parties and that respondents 2 and 3 are proposing to construct over that portion of land, which was earmarked as a passage. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite his objections, the first respondent is taking steps to accord permission to respondents 2 and 3. It is also stated that O.S.No.280 of 2009 filed by him in the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Vijayawada, against respondents 2 and 3 is pending. Heard Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt K.Aruna, learned standing counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. The partition between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 took place about 40 years ago. It appears that the land was an agricultural field at that time. Over the period, it has become an urban area. While granting permission for construction to an individual, the first respondent is guided by the master plan prepared and approved by it. Even where an application is filed for sanction of layout, it is only the master plan that becomes relevant. Once roads and streets are identified, the permissions to construct have to be accorded taking into account the existence of the roads. The petitioner is not able to assert that the lane alleged to have been mentioned in the partition deed is still existing and that, it is shown in the master plan or the approved layout. Unless it is recognised under the master plan or approved layout, the first respondent cannot recognise the same, much less take it into account for the purpose of sanctioning or according permissions. If the petitioner has any right, easementary or otherwise, vis-à-vis in lane or road that is not part of the master plan or approved layout, he has to work out his remedies in a civil court. The petitioner has already approached the civil court by filing O.S.No.280 of 2009. He stated that initially an order of temporary injunction was granted and thereafter, it was vacated. He has to pursue further remedies. In case, the petitioner has raised any dispute as to title of the land, for which the application is filed by respondents 2 and 3, that can be taken into account by respondent No.1. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the first respondent shall examine the documents of title that may be presented by respondents 2 and 3 before according permission in their favour. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 23rd December 2009 dr