ORDER:

Heard Mr. V. Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners; Mr. V. Siddhartha Goud, learned counsel representing Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing for respondent No.1; and Mr. G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…..to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in demolishing the structures and compound walls in plot Nos.138, 140, 141, 142 and 144 of the sanctioned layout formed by Survey of Indian Cooperative Housing Society Ltd in Sy.Nos.11/19, 11/20 and 11/21 of Khanamet Village and the proposed action of converting 30 feet road within the said layout into a 36 m (118 feet) road or 80 feet road for diverting the approved master plan road, as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the mandates of sections 12, 14, 15, 18 of the AP Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 and article 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore the structures demolished in the said plots of the petitioners and be pleased to pass such other orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. Mr. V. Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, by asserting the contentions in the writ affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, would contend that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of plots bearing Nos.138, 140, 141, 142 and 144 in the sanctioned layout prepared by Survey of India Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., in survey Nos.11/19, 11/20 and 11/21 of Khanamet Village, as approved by the Kondapur Gram Panchayat on 12.03.1981, which clearly depicts the master plan roads passing through the layout and also the internal roads to different plots. It is further contended that as per the said sanctioned layout, a 30 feet road was existing and now, the respondent authorities-HMDA are proposing to increase the width of the said road from 30 feet to 80/120 feet road, which is clearly affecting the rights of the petitioners over their respective plots.

4. Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that since the petitioner has purchased the said plots by distinct registered sale deeds, the authorities are duty bound to follow the statutory principles of law under the HMDA Act, 2008, by issuing notice to the petitioners and thereafter, determination as to the payment of compensation for acquiring the said lands shall be made by passing an award.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 would contend that the petitioners, who are the employees of Geological Survey of India, have purchased the said plots by their earnings and they cannot be deprived of the same under the guise of the master plan, by converting the existing 30 feet internal road, passing through the layout, to 80/120 feet road, without following due process of law.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing for respondent No.1 reiterating the contentions in the counter-affidavit would contend that the Khanamet Village is presently falling under the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 herein and in fact, respondent No.2 is vested with possession, development and control over the area of Khanamet Village and it is also stated that respondent No.2 is competent to grant building permission of the subject area in question.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for HMDA would further contend that the HMDA has only prepared the master plan and sent to Government for its approval. The then Government of Andhra Pradesh has approved the master plan vide G.O.Ms.No.MA dated 24.10.2001, which was duly notified in the gazette. As such, master plan came into existence, according to which 30 feet internal road is passing through the layout approved by the then Gram Panchayat in survey Nos.11/19, 11/20 and 11/21 of Khanamet Village.

8. Learned St