Smt. Lokireddy Seshumani, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.37369 of 2015 Dated 25.11.2015 Between:

Smt.Lokireddy Seshumani ... Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development Dept., Hyderabad and another

...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Butta Vijaya Bhasker Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Municipal Administration (AP) Counsel for respondent No.2: None appeared The Court made the following:

O r d e r :

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in proposing to lay road in the middle of the petitioner's property bearing D.No.48-16-11/2, 11/4 in R.S.No.476/5 situated at Gunadala, Vijayawada City, by deviating from the master plan, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner pleaded that she has purchased certain properties in R.S.No.476/5 under registered sale deeds between 1983 and 1990 and that as the vendor has not come forward to execute the sale deeds, she has filed OS.No.509 of 1992 in the Court of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, and obtained a decree on 06-02-2001 in pursuance of which registered sale deeds were executed in her favour by the Court itself. She has further averred that respondent No.2 has issued notice, dated NIL-09-2015, proposing to acquire 1172.

74 square yards of land for widening the road and that she has submitted representation on 18-09-2015 and given her consent for giving the land on payment of compensation. She has further averred that subsequently, on perusal of the master plan, she came to know that respondent No.2 has changed the alignment of the approved master plan in order to save the properties of a Member of Parliament by name Sri Gokaraju Gangaraju. This Court, on 18-11-2015, adjourned the case to enable Mr.T.Balaswamy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2- Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, for instructions from his client as to whether the road is being laid in deviation of the master plan.

submitted that the road is being widened strictly in accordance with the said master plan and that the petitioner has also given consent therefor, as pleaded by her, on condition of payment of compensation as per the prevailing market value.

Except the ipsi dixit of the petitioner, no evidence is produced before the Court to show that the road is being laid /widened by respondent No.2 in deviation of the master plan. In the absence of any such evidence, mere assertion of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Moreover, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 has specifically asserted that the alignment in the master plan is not being deviated and as noted above, he has even placed before the Court, a copy of the master plan in support of his submission. Having regard to the above noted facts, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, however, reserving the rights of the petitioner to claim appropriate compensation from respondent No.2.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.48089 of 2015, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 25th November, 2015 LUR