WP/28050/2005 of Mara Suresh, Vs The District Collector, on 30 December 2005

ORDER:

The petitioners – 8 of them; are residents of Nizamabad town. They purchasedresidential plots in survey Nos.82/A or 63/A or 63/AA from various vendors, who areeither original owners or purchasers from the former. The plots are situated statedlyin an approved layout. It appears, the Director of Town Planning, Government ofAndhra Pradesh (third respondent herein) approved a master plan in NizamabadMunicipality (now, Nizamabad Municipal Corporation, second respondent herein) in1975 and at that time, there was no 100 feet ring road passing through or adjacent tothe petitioners’ plots. Now, the petitioners allege that respondents 3 and 4, at thebehest of politically and economically influential people, are proposing to change orrealign 100 feet ring road deviating from the original approved master plan. Thepetitioners allege that this was being done to jack up the real estate prices to helpthose persons behind the realignment proposal. The petitioners, therefore,approached the Joint Collector, Nizamabad on 17.2.2003, 02.1.2004 and 06.1.2004to be enquired as to whether 100 feet wide road is being realigned or rescheduled indeviation from master plan. They did not receive any notice. Therefore, they filed thepresent writ petition praying for the following relief.

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that thisHon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Directionpreferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on thepart of the Respondents in not confirming that there is no proposal forchange in alignment/ rescheduling of 100 feet ring road from that of theapproved Master Plan, in respect of Survey Nos.82/A and 63/A and 63/AA ofNizamabad Shivar, as unjust, illegal and arbitrary and pass such further orother order(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems just, fit and proper in the factsand circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned StandingCounsel for Nizamabad Municipal Corporation, this Court is of the consideredopinion that the writ petition is filed on a mere apprehension. Even if the allegationthat there is a proposal to realign or relocate the 100 feet ring road, as per the masterplan or in deviation from the master plan, the petitioners can have no grievance.Only when a proper notification is issued as per A.P. Town Planning Act, 1920 orHyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 as applicable to Nizamabad MunicipalCorporation, they may seek redressal. Further, if the petitioners apprehend that therealigned 100 feet ring road would cut across some of the plots purchased by thepetitioners, necessarily the respondents have to issue a notification under LandAcquisition Act, 1894 and the petitioners can raise all their objections at that time.The imagination of the petitioners that they would be adversely affected cannot giverise any cause of action to invoke the remedy of judicial review before this Court.There is a presumption that every act of governance would be in accordance withrule of law and contra proposition cannot be accepted by this Court.

The writ petition totally misconceived and is accordingly dismissed in limini. Nocosts.

December 30, 2005.

______________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

YS