THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.7810 OF 2004 Dated 9th October, 2009 Between: Dommagani Sarojana and four others …Petitioners And The District Collector and three others …Respondents The Court made the following O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 2 and 3 to adhere to the Rules and Regulations of Master Plan No.2 of 2002 File No.C3/1228/2003 and consequently not to dismantle the compound wall of the petitioners and not to close the drainage pipelines on the ground of reducing the width of the road at 60 feet against the original master plan of 80 feet width and to dispose of the representation of the petitioners dated 11.02.2004. The case of the petitioners, as disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is that petitioners 1, 2 and 5 own houses bearing Nos.11-23-1836, 14/470 and 11-23-1514 respectively and petitioners 3 and 4 purchased plot Nos.1 and 12 respectively in Survey Nos.196/B and 197/B at Ekashila Nagar, Warangal. In front of their houses and plots, there is a 80 feet road as per the master plan. It is the grievance of the petitioners that to favour respondent No.4, the width of road is being reduced to 60 feet and drainage lines are being constructed by the respondents illegally in contravention of the width of the road notified in the master plan. Counter-affidavit is filed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Warangal-respondent No.3, wherein, while generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that the width of the road leading from Desaipet to Mogilicherla via Ekashila Park was reduced from 80 feet to 60 feet in the Road Development Plan No.2 of 2002. It is further stated that the Corporation has taken up construction of drainage duly observing 60 feet wide road and also the effected portions of the compound walls of the houses were demolished for the maintenance of road alignment. It is also stated that the petitioners have purchased the plots unauthorisedly and their plots are not covered by any approved lay out. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners on the premise that the width of the road, in question, as per the master plan has to be maintained at 80 feet, but from the averments of the counter-affidavit, it is evident that the width of the road has been reduced from 80 feet to 60 feet in Road Development Plan No.2 of 2002 itself. In that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot seek directions for maintaining the width of the road at 80 feet. In any event as it is also stated that the plots purchased by the petitioners were not approved by any lay out, as such the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. No material is also placed before this Court in support of the allegation of the petitioners that the width of the road was reduced from 80 feet to 60 feet to favour respondent No.4. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition for the grant of the relief as prayed for. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 9th October, 2009 vrn