THOTA SUBBA RAO Vs. STATE OF A. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed for the following amended prayer:

(2.) This Court has heard Sri S. Sriramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent-Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Sri K.K. Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-GUDA and Sri M.S.R Sashi Bhushan for the 4th respondent. On behalf of the 3rd respondent-Municipal Corporation, learned Standing Counsel Sri M. Manohar Reddy argued.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are residents of an area called Pidimgoyyi, outside the city of Rajamahendravaram. They all claimed to be settled in the said area having constructed houses, established businesses etc., since long. They are questioning the change in the alignment of a 80 feet road. The original master plan had this road in a particular alignment. Now because of the objections raised by the 4th respondent the same is proposed to be changed. The contention of the petitioners is if a new road is formed about 26 families will lose their investments, houses, shops etc. Although in the pleading it is said that 26 people are involved only six people are before this Court as petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the change in the alignment of the road has been done only to suit the interest of the 4th respondent, who is a prominent and a powerful person. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the objections that were given about the change in the alignment were not considered at all. He pleaded it was an empty formality. He points out that the 4th respondent is the owner of a vacant site, whereas the petitioners are residents of houses which have been built houses or factories etc., which have been established after obtaining due approvals. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire exercise is vitiated by mala fides and that neither the State nor its officials acted as required under law. He submits that the entire exercise is vitiated and that the Writ Petition should be allowed. He questions the decision making process which according him is tainted and therefore urges that the Writ Petition must be allowed.