Mr. Srikanth V J Tanikella vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3476 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

                    WRIT PETITION No.45462 of 2022
ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

is filed by the petitioners, seeking the following relief:

"....to issue an appropriate writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of a mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in changing the nature and purpose of the 36 meters wide road connecting the Service Road and the Gandipet- Shankarpally Road in Survey Nos.239 and 240 of Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ("Subject Road") by encroaching upon it and converting it into an extension of the Outer Ring Road, as being arbitrary, illegal, vexatious and violative of the constitutional rights of the Petitioner under Articles 14, 21 and 300A as well as being contrary to the provisions of the HMDA Act, 2008, G.O.Ms.No. Nil, MA &UD Dept., dated 09.07.2008; G.O.Ms.No.168, MA & UD Dept., dated 07.04.2012 (i.e the Building Rules, 2012) and G.O.Ms. No. 24 MA &UD Dept., dated. 04.02.2020 and to consequently direct the Respondents to:

(i) desist from changing the nature of the Subject Road to that of an extension of the Outer Ring Road; and

(ii) to limit any modification of the Subject Road only to widening it to 45 metres width strictly in conformity with the approved variation at Sl. No. 6 of G.O.Ms. No. 24 MA &UD Dept., dated. 04.02.2020; and

(iii) to remove all such constructions to the extent already made including construction of the tunnels, earth retainers, etc. and restore the Subject Road to its original use as one connecting the service road to the ORR and the Gandipet- Shankarpally Road;...."

2. The petitioners claim to be residents of residential complex by

name "Movie Towers" situated in Survey Nos.239 and 240 of Kokapet

Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The case of the

petitioners is that G.O.Ms.No. Nil, MA & UD Dept., dated 09.07.2008

and G.O.Ms.No.168, MA & UD Dept., dated 07.04.2012 (i.e, the

Building Rules, 2012) prescribe that the minimum abutting road

width for a high rise building/complex of above 50 meters height has

to be 30 meters. The purpose of prescribing minimum width for an

abutting road is to ensure sufficient unhindered access and free flow

of traffic for the residents of the building and also other commuters of

such abutting road. Since the width of road on the eastern side of

Movie Towers connecting the Service Road of the ORR at one end and

the Gandipet-Shankarpally road on the other was 36 metres wide, the

building permission for the residential complex Movie Towers was

accorded for a building height of 57 metres. The Respondent No.2

proposed that 36 metre road be widened to 45 meters, which

modification to the Master Plan was approved by G.O.Ms.No.24 MA &

UD Dept, dated 04.02.2020. The said G.O only contemplates widening

of existing road from 36 metres to 45 metres but does not in any

manner contemplate subsuming and converting the Subject Road to

an extension of the ORR by way of a trumpet interchange and ramp of

accessing the Outer Ring Road. It is further case of the petitioners

that any modification to the Master Plan has to be carried out only in

accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Hyderabad

Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 (for short "HMDA Act").

Section 15(2) requires that a report be prepared for any such

modification and submitted to the Government for approval. Section

15(3) requires that any proposed variation be published in at least two

popular newspapers and objections called for and considered before

approving any modification to the Master Plan. Any approved

modification is then required by Section 15(4) to be published in the

Telangana Gazette and would come into effect from the date of such

publication. The case of the petitioners is that there was only a

proposal to widen the Subject Road and that at no point of time there

was a proposal or approval for changing the nature of the road from a

road connecting the service road to one of a trumpet interchange and

ramp connecting directly to the ORR. The public notice published in

Hans India (English) and Andhra Jyothi (Telugu) on 07.09.2019 as

well as the approved variations in G.O.Ms. No. 24 MA &UD Dept.,

dated. 04.02.2020 only contemplates the widening of the road and in

no manner authorise the conversion of the road to a ramp for and

extension of the ORR. The approval of the Government for the

proposed modification vide G.O.Ms.No.24 MA & UD Dept., dated

04.02.2020 was also conditional upon the 2nd Respondent complying

with the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms. No. 168 dated 07.04.2012

(i.e the Building Rules, 2012) & G.O.Ms.No. 33 dated 24.01.2013. It is

further case of the petitioners that the Respondents are seeking to

convert the Subject Road into a trumpet interchange and ramp with

controlled toll-paid access through 8 toll booths as an extension of the

main carriage way of the ORR and reduce the width of the Subject

Road to 10 metres, thereby violating G.O.Ms. No. 24 MA & UD Dept.,

dated 04.02.2020 as well as the Building Rules, 2012 which require a

minimum width of 30 metres for roads abutting buildings over 50

metres in height. It is further stated that G.O.Ms. No. 24 MA &UD

Dept., dated 04.02.2020 does not permit reduction of the abutting

road width to 10 meters. The Respondents, having prescribed a

minimum access road width of 36 metres in accordance with the

Building Rules, are bound by it and they are estopped from causing

any reduction thereof. It is further case of the petitioners that while

the width of the abutting road may be a consideration for the purpose

of approving the building plans, it is also a minimum requirement and

casts a corresponding obligation on the Respondent not to make any

modification reducing such width and detrimentally altering the rights

of the persons. The action of the Respondents encroaching and

converting the Subject Road not only adversely affects the Petitioners

right to life as well as quality of life but also rights guaranteed under

Article 300A of the Constitution of India as it diminishes the value of

the Petitioners property. The fact that such encroachment is being

undertaken by the Respondents under the guise of G.O.Ms. No. 24 MA

& UD Dept., dated 04.02.2020 and for the benefit of the Neopolis

project propounded by the Respondents is nothing but a brazen abuse

of state authority and a blatant bulldozing by instrumentalities of the

state. The encroachment effectively narrows down the Subject Road to

just 7 meters and also impairs access to the Service Road. The sudden

and acute narrowing of the Subject Road would not just cause a huge

traffic bottleneck but the placement of the tunnels & ramp for the

impugned conversion also impairs the access to the underpass and

compels commuters such as petitioners and thousands of others to

travel an additional distance of over 4 km to be able to join the service

road towards Narsingi. The impugned action also appears to be

undertaken with an ulterior profit motive for enhancing toll collection

by forcing commuters to use the ORR. It is further case of the

petitioners that a resident of Movie Towers has filed W.P.No.15952 of

2022 and a few other residents have filed W.P.No.33346 of 2022

challenging the reduction of width of the Subject Road on varying

grounds and the said writ petitions are pending for adjudication. It is

further case of the petitioners that respondents have failed to adhere

to the procedure prescribed by Section 15 of the HMDA Act, 2008 for

modifying the HMDA Master Plan 2031 for construction of a ramp and

trumpet exchange thereby extending the ORR by subsuming the

Subject Road. The Respondents are hurriedly and motivatedly

proceeding with the construction of a trumpet interchange and ramp

as part of and for the benefit of the Neopolis project propounded by it

without any consideration to the detriment being caused to the

Petitioners in disregard to objections raised as well as the orders of

this Hon'ble Court. It is further case of the petitioners that in the

counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.15952/2022, the Respondents stated

that proposal of a 36 metre road on the northern side of Movie Towers

was dropped on account of the objections. It is the case of the

petitioners that the respondents are carrying out the work in an

accelerated pace without considering the objections of the flat owners

who are occupied nearly 320 flats and population of approximately

1500, who are regularly using the said road in addition to thousands

of private, public, commercial and other vehicles commuting to and

through the Service Road and the Gandipet-Shankarpally road. Any

reduction of the width of the Subject Road would perilously affect the

efficacious movement of vehicles like school buses, transport vehicles,

fire engines, ambulances etc. Therefore, the petitioners prayed that

this Court to issue writ of mandamus, declaring the action of

Respondents in changing the nature and purpose of 36 meters wide

road connecting the Service Road and the Gandipet- Shankarpally

Road in Survey Nos.239 and 240 of Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ("Subject Road") by encroaching upon it

and converting it into an extension of the Outer Ring Road, as being

arbitrary, illegal, vexatious and violative of the constitutional rights of

the Petitioners under Articles 14, 21 and 300A as well as being

contrary to the provisions of the HMDA Act, 2008, Building Rules

approved by the Government and G.O.Ms.No.24 MA &UD Dept., dated

04.02.2020 and consequently prayed this Court to direct the

Respondents to: (i) desist from changing the nature of the Subject

Road to that of an extension of the Outer Ring Road; and (ii) to limit

any modification of the Subject Road only to widening it to 45 metres

width strictly in conformity with the approved variation at SL. No. 6 of

G.O.Ms. No. 24 MA &UD Dept., dated 04.02.2020; and (iii) to remove

all such constructions to the extent already made including

construction of the tunnels, earth retainers, etc. and restore the

Subject Road to its original use as one connecting the service road to

the ORR and the Gandipet- Shankarpally Road;

3. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed their counter affidavit,

wherein inter alia it is stated that there is no illegal encroachment and

Construction is being undertaken by HMDA as per the norms and

there is no change in nature of the 36 metres wide road connecting to

the service road and the Gandipet-Shankerpally Road in Sy.Nos.239

and 240 situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District and is in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.24

dt:04.02.2020. It is further stated that the said road is not an

extension of Outer Ring Road, as it is part of the 'Neo Polis Layout'. It

is further stated that the said road is having connectivity to the R & B

road leading to is proposed taking into consideration of the future

growth and seamless connectivity and conflict free junction for smooth

flow of traffic by proposing the required trumpet and ramps with all

necessary slip roads and access roads to the development along the

said road. It is further stated that the road is proposed and taken up

for construction duly following all the norms for future traffic and also

to provide sufficient unhindered access of 10 metres carriageway

abutting to the movie towers property, accessing to the Outer Ring

Road and Neo polis Layout. At Present, the road is 36 metres wide

with existing carriageway of 7 metres which is now widened to 45

metres road with different carriageways accessing to the Outer Ring

Road Service Road and Outer Ring Road Main Carriageway and 10

metres carriageway along the property line of movie towers, which is

more than the existing road. It is further stated that the G.O.Ms.No.24

MA & UD, Department dated 04.02.2020 contemplates widening of

existing road from 36 metres to 45 metres and the above road is not

an extension of Outer Ring Road. It is a 45 metres road connecting to

Outer Ring Road through the Trumpet Interchange so as to have

conflict free junction for the faster connectivity to the different parts of

the City. It is further stated that proposals are formulated taking into

consideration of the traffic growth due to lot of developments coming

up in Kokapet and surrounding areas including the Neo polis Layout.

The proposals are formulated duly following all the mandatory

provisions and G.O.Ms.No.24 MA & UD, Department dated

04.02.2020 was issued, notifying the road as 45 metres as against the

existing 36 metres. It is further stated that many flyovers, Road Over

Bridges and Interchanges/Grade Separators are constructed within

the available Right of Way and are proposed based on traffic volumes.

It is further stated that Section 15 of HMDA Act stipulates the

procedure for modifications to the Metropolitan Development Plan

which includes widening of the roads and creating master plan roads

and hence the same is not applicable for understanding any

developments like foot over bridges, flyovers, etc., on the existing

roads and the authorities are empowered to take up such development

works on existing roads for free flow of traffic and to ease the

congestions on the roads and hence taking up such works relating to

infrastructure is required to enable the traffic on the existing roads in

the city to eventually culminate on to the ORR. It is further stated that

the HMDA has taken up the development of Neo-polis Layout in

Sy.Nos.239 & 240 duly providing all Infrastructure facilities including

construction of Trumpet Interchange for providing direct access to the

8 Lane access controlled Outer Ring Road with well-planned traffic

circulation pattern for smooth traffic flow taking into consideration of

the future growth of the Neopolis Layout. It is further stated that the

proposal of widening of existing 36.00 metres to 45.00 metres road

with trumpet interchange, slip roads, service roads fitting within the

45 metres Right of Way are undertaken while taking into

consideration of the Neopolis layout and the development that will be

coming up along the road and in the adjoining areas and a proper

road network as a long term solution. It is further stated that the

Government has constructed various flyovers in the heart of the city

within the available right of way and approach ramps are connected

with sufficient width of service roads to have a proper ingress and

egress to the buildings existing. It is further stated that the residents

are of the opinion that the road of 36.00 Metres/45.00 Metres belongs

to them and no structures should be built up in the 45.00 Metres. In

the Gazette it will be given as widening of road from 36.00 metres to

45.00 metres only and the structures to be built on that road need not

be mentioned. It is further stated that the present 7 metres

carriageway in the existing 36 metres Right of way is under

development to the 10 metres carriageway as slip road, connecting to

the movie towers and its adjoining buildings in the 45 metres wide

Master Plan road connecting Outer Ring Road service road and R & B

road to Shankerpally. The existing road with 36 meters width in front

of Movie Towers is widened to 45 meters and the said road

commences from R & B road (i.e., Shankarpally to Gandipet) and

culminates into service road abutting ORR. The facility is increased to

3-lane as against existing 2-lane with multiple carriageways for the

traffic to the entire Kokapet and its surrounding areas. The purpose of

widening 36 meters to 45 meters is to cater to the growing traffic

needs of the larger area road network flowing from Shankarpally,

Gandipet, Vattinagulapally, etc., so as to enable them to merge into

service road and also onto ORR. It is further stated that for the

purpose of connecting any of the city roads to the service roads and

ORR, infrastructures like construction of ramp, flyover are required to

enable the traffic on such city road to take the ramp, then the flyover

and then onto the trumpet interchange and take required diversions

on the said trumpet interchange as per their destinations and

eventually merge themselves onto their respective service roads

connecting the ORR. It is further stated that the present Right of way

in front of Movie Towers is 36 metres which is proposed for widening

to 45 metres. The carriageway is proposed to 2 Nos. of 3-lane

carriageway i.e. 6-lane carriageway in addition to the 10 metres wide

i.e. 3-lane road in front of Movie Towers as against the existing 7

metres width carriageway. It is further stated that the carriageway for

Movie Tower residents and future development along the Movie Towers

is 10 metres (i.e. for a length of 600 metres) which is actually with a

better facility once the works are completed. It is further stated that in

view of the aforesaid reasons and since after obtaining opinion of the

technical experts the work of converting the Subject Road to an

extension of the ORR by way of a trumpet interchange and ramp of

accessing the Outer Ring Road is being taken up and prayed to vacate

the interim order of status quo passed by this Court in

W.P.No.45462/2022 dated 22.12.2022 and dismiss the writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has

vehemently argued that without considering the representation

submitted by the petitioners, the respondents have undertaken the

construction of changing the nature and width of existing 36 meters

wide connecting ORR service road on the Eastern side of MOVIE

Towers to 45 meters by revising the master plan in exercise of the

power under Section 15 of the HMDA Act, 2008. Learned counsel

further submitted that the respondents without acquiring any land for

increasing the road width from 36 meters to 45 meters; and without

complying the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.168, dated

07.04.2012 and contrary to the Building Rules, 2012 framed in

G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 04.02.2020, which states that the minimum

abutting road width for high rise building/complex of above 50 meters

height is 30 meters and all-round open space is 16 meters and also

without following the procedure under Section 15 of the HMDA Act for

making any alteration to the Master plan, undertook construction of

an express way extension to the ORR comprising of a trumpet for

landing and exit from ORR with a flyover and a ramp as a part of the

NEOPOLIS project for development of IT & ITES SEZs, by providing

suitable infrastructure facilities in Acs.119.00 of land in Survey

Nos.239 and 240 of Kokapet Village. Learned counsel further

submitted that existing 36 meters wide connecting ORR service road

on the Eastern side of MOVIE Towers is the only access road for all

the residents for ingress and egress as well as Gandipet-Shankerpally

Road and the respondents are proposing to erect eight toll gates being

three for entry and five for exit on the ramp portion of the proposed

extension to the ORR. The purport of extension of ORR and the road

shown in the said layout planned on the Northern side of Movie

Towers to provide access road to the petitioners is absent in the

HMDA Master Plan, 2031. The respondents have abandoned the

proposal of providing an alternate access road on the Northern side

and connection to service road and ought not have continued with

their plan to extend the ORR by using the only available required

access road of 30 meters width on the Eastern side. They are

proposing to reduce the abutting access road width for MOVIE Towers

to 9 meters out of which also only 7 meters full carriageway and 2

meters earthen shoulder is proposed. Such a narrow two-line road,

apart from being contrary to the building rules, is highly insufficient

and vehicles like school buses, transport vehicles, fire engines,

ambulances, etcetera cannot even move freely and prayed to allow the

writ petition.

5. On the other hand, Sri E. Ajay Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

representing Smt. D. Madhavi, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA

submitted that the respondents have followed all the established

procedures and there is no procedural violation as averred by the

petitioner. He submitted that they have increased the width of ORR

Service Road at MOVIE Towers to Gandipet - Shankarpally Road to 45

Meters vide G.O.Ms.No. 24, MA & UD Department, dated 04.02.2020

by revising the Master Plan in exercise of the powers conferred under

Section 15 of the HMDA Act, 2008. He submits that for widening of

road from 36 to 45 meters on the eastern side of the Movie Towers

they have taken utmost care not to disturb the setbacks/compound

wall at the junction of ORR connectivity, the Trumpet Interchange is

proposed with a six lane with central meridian without conflict to the

traffic flow on to the ORR going towards Patancheru, Shamshabad

and Gachibowli sides with slip roads of sufficient width connecting to

the service roads. Learned counsel submitted that the slip road

connecting to the service road with access to the MOVIE Towers is

provided with three-lane carriage way (10 meters) with 1 meter

footpath for the traffic flow as against the existing two-lane carriage

way presently 36 Meters ROW and the flyover is proposed all along the

centre of the road which is a general practice for construction of any

flyover. It is submitted that while considering any application for

building permission which are abutting to this 45 Meters wide road,

the entire road width of 45 Meters will be taken into consideration for

all practical purposes and building permissions will be issued

accordingly. It is further submitted that the whole endeavour of the

respondents in constructing the flyover on the Trumpet lane is for

smooth traffic flow taking into consideration the future growth of

NEOPOLIS Layout. The present proposal of widening of existing 36

Meters to 45 Meters road with Trumpet Interchange, slip roads,

service roads fitting within the 45 Meters row are taken up taking into

consideration the NEOPOLIS Layout and the development along the

road and in the adjoining areas as proper road network is required

to achieve a long term solution. The learned Senior Counsel relied on

the following judgments:

i) Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1

ii) B.P. Mahesh v. State of Karnataka 2

iii) State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu 3

iv) National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited v. Montecarlo Limited 4

v) Food Corporation of India v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 5

vi) Sethi Auto Services Station v. Delhi Development Authority 6

The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the common order dated

20.06.2023 passed in Writ Petition Nos.15952 and 33346 of 2022,

and prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

6. A learned Single Judge of this Court after elaborate

consideration of submissions made by both sides, material placed on

record and also the above referred judgments relied upon by the

learned Senior Counsel appearing for HMDA, dismissed Writ Petition

Nos.15952 and 33346 of 2022 filed seeking similar relief, vide

common order dated 20.06.2023 on the following observations:

(2010) 5 SCC 590

2018 SCC Online Kar 39

(1994) 2 SCC 481

(2022) 6 SCC 401

(1993) 1 SCC 71

(2009) 1 SCC 180

"10. In Writ Petition No. 33346 of 2022, the petitioner sought for a mandamus directing the respondents not to make any construction in Survey Nos. 239 and 240 of Kokapet Village including construction of express way, extension of ORR which is likely to reduce the width of the access road to MOVIE Towers and to remove such constructions which are already made including construction of express way.

11. Writ Petition No. 15952 of 2022 is also filed with the similar relief. The bone of contention of both the learned Senior Counsel as well as the learned counsel is that when they are prescribing particular parameters by virtue of G.O.Ms.No. 24, the respondents have to follow their own rules. If the flyover is constructed just opposite to their apartment, it will affect their ingress and egress which will create congestion and traffic problems. It is also their case that width of the road is extended from 35 to 45 meters by amending the master plan without following the due procedure as contemplated under the Act.

12. It is the contention of the respondents that even while constructing the flyover they are still maintaining 36 meters wide road, it is only the apprehension of the petitioners. They have brought to the notice of the Court the G.O., whereby the master plan was amended extending the road width from 30 to 45 meters. On the first count, the petitioner cannot question the amendment of the master plan by the respondents in this Writ Petition for the reason the said G.O.Ms.No. 24, dated 04.02.2020 issued by the respondents by amending the Master Plan is not in question before this Court. Hence, the petitioners cannot agitate the said issue and this Court cannot go into the said aspect. The Courts as well as the people cannot lose sight of the fact that the city is developing multi-fold in a fast pace. The government has the responsibility to act in tune with the growing requirements and take steps to provide the road and other facilities to the inhabitants of the city. In that process, looking at the larger interest, the respondents have taken a decision to construct a flyover. The petitioners have to demonstrate before this Court that their constitutional rights are affected or there is violation of any statutory rules. Further, this Court can interfere on the grounds of mala fides, arbitrariness or unreasonableness. When no such grounds are raised this Court cannot

interfere with the construction of flyover which is in the larger public interest. Learned Senior Counsel for HMDA has brought to the notice of this Court G.O.Ms.No. 168, dated 07.04.2012 and also going through the contents of the counter affidavit wherein it is categorically mentioned that by constructing a flyover or trumpet interchange before the petitioner's towers, width of the road is not condensed. Even assuming for argument sake that the width of the road before the petitioners' apartment is reduced, still the Court will not interfere as it is settled law that in case of a conflict between public interest and individual interest, public interest will outweigh the personal interest. Hence, in any view of the matter, no grounds much less legal grounds are made out seeking interference of the Court.

13. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs."

7. The prayer and the contentions raised in the earlier Writ

Petition Nos.15952 and 33346 of 2022 and the present writ petition

are almost similar.

8. It is the case of the petitioners herein in this writ petition is

that without considering the representation of the petitioners; without

acquiring any land for increasing the road width from 36 meters to 45

meters; and without complying the conditions laid down in

G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 07.04.2012 and contrary to the Building Rules,

2012 framed in G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 04.02.2020, which states that

the minimum abutting road width for high rise building/complex of

above 50 meters height is 30 meters and all-round open space is 16

meters; and also without following the procedure under Section 15 of

the HMDA Act for making any alteration to the Master plan, the

respondents undertook construction of an express way extension to

the ORR comprising of a trumpet for landing and exit from ORR with a

flyover and a ramp as a part of development of NEOPOLIS project in

Survey Nos.239 and 240 of Kokapet Village. According to the

petitioners, the purported extension of ORR and the purported road

shown in the said layout planned on the Northern side of Movie

Towers to provide access road to the petitioners is absent in the

HMDA Master Plan, 2031 and the respondents have abandoned the

proposal of providing an alternate access road on the Northern side

and connection to service road and ought not have continued with

their plan to extend the ORR by using the only available required

access road of 30 meters width on the Eastern side. It is further case

of the petitioners that existing 36 meters wide connecting ORR service

road on the Eastern side of Movie Towers is the only access road for

all the residents for ingress and egress as well as Gandipet-

Shankerpally Road and the respondents are proposing to erect eight

toll gates being three for entry and five for exit on the ramp portion of

the proposed extension to the ORR.

9. It is apt to extract Section 15 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan

Development Authority Act, 2008, which reads as follows:

"15. Modifications to the Metropolitan Development Plan and Investment Plan.

(1) The Metropolitan Development Authority or the Government, as the case may be, may make such modifications to the Metropolitan

Development and Investment Plans as it may think fit and which in its opinion are necessary.

(2) The Metropolitan Commissioner shall prepare a report together with necessary plan, any such modification and submit to the Government for approval.

(3) Before making any modifications to the Metropolitan Development Plan and Investment Plan, the Metropolitan Development Authority, or the Government, as the case may be, shall publish a notice in at least two popular local newspapers and Telangana Gazette inviting objections and suggestions from the public specifying such date in the notice and for examining the proposals and report and shall consider all objections and suggestions that may be received by the Metropolitan Development Authority or Government.

(4) Every modification made under the provisions of this section shall be published in the Telangana Gazette and newspapers and the modifications shall come into operation from the date of publication of such notification in the Telangana Gazette and newspapers.

(5) The Metropolitan Development Authority shall levy such fees and conversion charges from the owners as applicable and as may be prescribed in any such modification effected to the Metropolitan Development Plan and Investment Plan."

The above provision of law specifically states the procedure for

modification to the Metropolitan Development Plan and Investment

Plan, which includes widening of the roads and creating master plan

roads. It is a known factor that the authorities are bound to improve

or widen the existing roads for hassle free traffic and to avoid traffic

congestions on the roads and hence taking up such works relating to

infrastructure is required to enable the traffic on the existing roads in

the city to eventually culminate on to the ORR. Such power is

impliedly vested with the authorities. Once the power has been

conferred by the Statute for development plans, it is for the authority

to undertake the work subject to technical sanction for developmental

works and the Courts cannot intervene into such powers which are

having foundation of technical sanction. When the technical matters

are involved, the Courts should be more reluctant to interfere with the

decision taken by the authorities as the Courts do not have necessary

expertise to adjudicate upon the technical issues. Admittedly, in the

present case, the respondents have taken up the construction work of

changing or widening the existing road from 36 metres to 45 metres.

Therefore, there is no need to mention about the structures built on

the said road. Further, the present 7 metres carriageway in the

existing 36 metres Right of way is under development to the 10 metres

carriageway as slip road, connecting to the movie towers and its

adjoining buildings in the 45 metres wide Master Plan road connecting

Outer Ring Road service road and R & B road to Shankerpally. The

existing road with 36 meters width in front of Movie Towers is widened

to 45 meters and the said road commences from R & B road (i.e,

Shankarpally to Gandipet) and culminates into service road abutting

ORR. The facility is increased to 3-lane as against existing 2-lane with

multiple carriageways for the traffic to the entire Kokapet and its

surrounding areas. The purpose and object of widening 36 meters to

45 meters is to cater to the growing traffic needs of the larger area

road network flowing from Shankarpally, Gandipet, Vattinagulapally,

etc., so as to enable them to merge into service road and also onto

ORR. For the purpose of connecting any of the city roads to the service

roads and ORR, infrastructures like construction of ramp, flyover are

required to enable the traffic on such city road to take the ramp, then

the flyover and then onto the trumpet interchange and take required

diversions on the said trumpet interchange as per their destinations

merge themselves onto their respective service roads connecting the

ORR. Since these technical aspects will fall within the knowledge and

discretion of the concerned experts, who prepare plan after studying

the traffic pattern, the same does not require to be interfered in

exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India that too in the absence of the petitioners establishing the legal

infirmities and mala fide action on the part of the respondents. The

learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.15952 and 33346 of

2022 after elaborately considering the requirements of constructions

and extension of existing road width from 36 metres to 45 metres and

the powers vested with the respondents under the provisions of the

HMDA Act, dismissed the said Writ Petitions by a reasoned order. In

the instant case also, this Court does not find any legal infirmities

warranting interference with the construction activities being

undertaken by the respondents for construction of an express way

extension to the ORR comprising of a trumpet for landing and exit

from ORR with a flyover and a ramp, facilitating the public at large.

Further, even if individual interest of the petitioners is suffered, that

cannot have any bearing over the interest of the public at large. The

respondents specifically stated in their counter affidavit that by

constructing a flyover or trumpet interchange in front of the

petitioners towers, the width of the road is not reduced and the

petitioners rights, are not affected in any manner and there is no

violation of the Building Rules, 2012. As admittedly, the rights vested

in the Government are free from all encumberances, the petitioners

are not entitled to question the action of the respondents, particularly,

in the absence of a vested right being accrued in their favour.

10. In Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra

Pradesh's case (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as

follows:

"38. We have taken pains to set out the fact situation in some detail since a decision in this matter depends on the fact situation leading to the change of alignment of the western sector of the Outer Ring Road Project in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh. From the site plans of the area submitted by the parties, it is clear that both the two alignments touch and disturb existing water bodies, which was the main ground for the change of alignment in the first place. From the reports submitted by the various local authorities, it is, however, clear that in order to proceed according to the first alignment, the respondents would have to cut through a great deal of rock, which is not so as far as the second alignment is concerned.

39. It is no doubt true that in terms of the environmental policies of the State Government, the western sector of the Project has been shown to

be a highly ecologically sensitive zone, but we have no choice but to consider the viability of either of the two alignments for the purpose of the connectivity of the outer ring road and while doing so we have to balance the aforesaid factor and also the interest of the private landowners as against the interest of the public. Apart from the above, we have also to take into consideration the factors that the major stretch of the outer ring road is said to have been completed, even in the western sector, and only a small stretch involving the plots of the appellants, is yet to be completed.

40. There is no doubt that in the facts of this case the public interest will outweigh the interest of the individual plot-holders. The only consideration is with regard to the preservation of the water bodies which are yet untouched, such as, Plot No. 300 mentioned in the report of the Central Water Commission and also in the letter written by the Executive Engineer on 23-12-2006."

In the instant case, since the petitioners legal rights have not been

effected and as this Court has already taken a view and dismissed the

earlier writ petitions which are filed seeking similar relief and the

findings recorded therein attained finality, this is not a fit case to

interfere with the action of the respondents. Under these

circumstances, the present writ petition is devoid of merits and is

liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions

shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

___________________________ C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 01.11.2023 scs