M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Y. Padmavathi, learned standing counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. The petitioner is the owner of a vacant house site/plot bearing No. 39A admeasuring 372.50 sq.yds/311.45 sq.mtrs in survey No. 60 of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. She has purchased the same from one Ch. Mallikarjuna Prasad under a registered sale deed document No. 1228/2013 dt. 30.01.2013 for valuable sale consideration.

3. The petitioner intended to make construction in the said plot and applied to the second respondent on 14.10.2014 for grant of building permission by enclosing the requisite fee.

4. The second respondent, vide impugned order/proceedings No. G/92/BA/WZ/73357/2014, dated 25.10.2014 rejected the petitioner's application for building permission on the ground that her property is affected under 30 meter wide master plan road as per the Ramachandrapuram Zonal Development Plan.

5. This is questioned by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.

6. The petitioner has also obtained from the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, land use information, vide letter No. 102184-LU/P5/HMDA/2014, dated 25.07.2014, whereby the land in survey No. 60 is intended for residential use and the said letter also indicates that a 60 meter wide road is passing through the said survey number at one corner.

7. The petitioner contends that the impugned order cannot be sustained since mere indication in the master plan that a portion of the land of the petitioner is intended for use as a road would not deprive her of the ownership of the property to the extent of the affected portion and that if respondents require any portion of her property for road widening, it is incumbent on the part of the second respondent to initiate proceedings for acquisition of the same under the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'the GHMC Act'). He further contends that under Section 32 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 (for short 'the HMDA Act') in situations of this nature, proposals for acquisition should be initiated by the local authority i.e., the second respondent and sent to the first respondent and that without doing so, the petitioner cannot be compelled to give up her property free of cost.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the order dt. 02.09.2014 of this Court in W.P. No. 1995 of 2012 as well as the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pt. Chet Ram Vashist v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi, (1995) 1 SCC 47, Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran Vs. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. and others, (2007) 8 S.C.C. 705 and M. Naga Venkata Lakshmi v. Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and another, 2007 (8) Supreme Court Cases 748.

9. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in para 4, it is stated that the petitioner's site is getting affected in "30 meter wide master plan road", but the building application was rejected on the ground that the site was getting affected under proposed "100 feet wide master plan road" and that the same was intimated to the petitioner on 25.10.2014.

10. As seen from the impugned order, there is no mention in the impugned order that the petitioner's site being affected by 100 feet wide master plan road. It is not open to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to raise in counter affidavit such new grounds for rejection of the petitioner's application which are not contained in the impugned order dt. 25.10.2014.

11. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC also places reliance on Rules 16 and 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2012 (for short 'the Rules') notified vide G.O. No. 168, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, dated 07.04.2012.

12. Rule 16 of the Rules reads as under:

"16. Concessions in Road Widening Cases:

(a) Where any land or