L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the validity of the Master Plan of Nizamabad Town, notified under the A. P. Town Planning Act and the action of the respondents in putting red mark to the building of the petitioners in mpl. Nos. 9-10-997, 998, 999 and 100/1 of Nizambad, for the purpose of road widening as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. ( 2 ) THE averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as under:-- the father of the petitioners purchased two separate bits of lands in the premises referred to above in the year 1967. There existed a strip of land belonging to the Municipality separating the two bits. He petitioner purchased the strip of 35 sq. yards of land from the Municipality, the 1st respondent, through sale deed dated 30-5-1987. The petitioners were granted permission on 10-12-1991 to construct on the said premises and they made construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan, after leaving the portion shown as affected by the Master Plan. A Master Plan for Nizamabad town was brought into existence through G. O. Ms. No. 46 ma dated 15-2-1974, indicating various details as provided for under Section 4 of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Municipalities Act, 1956. The 1st respondent can undertake widening of the road under Section 244 of the Act only after acquisition of the land under Section 251 of that Act. Though the said Act has been repealed by the A. P. Municipalities Act 1965, the provisions of the 1956 act, particularly, those of Sections 24 to 251 have been saved. They allege that the respondents did not follow the procedure and failed to determine regular line of the street regarding set back of the buildings. According to them, in the absence of such delineation of street line, it was not open to the respondents to undertake any road widening. They complain that though they made constructions strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan, a mark was put on the building indicating that the marked portion is required to be demolished for the purpose of widening of the road. While admitting the writ petition, this court granted an interim direction on 26-8-1998, not to cause any loss to the building of the petitioners, pending the disposal of the writ petition. While admitting the writ petition, this court granted an interim direction on 26-8-1998, not to cause any loss to the building of the petitioners, pending the disposal of the writ petition. Separate counter affidavits were filed by the Commissioner, Municipality and district Collector, the 2nd respondent. In one of the counter affidavits, they have stated that the petitioners encroached into the road margin and made construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan. The proceedings in the writ petition discloses that petitioners were able to persuade this court that the use of expression "encroachment" was not proper, since the construction was made after obtaining the permission from the Municipality. At one stage while making the interim orders absolute on 18-1-1999, an observation was made that the 1st respondent shall explain as to why he shall not be prosecuted for swearing the false affidavit. The petitioners also filed Contempt Case no. 749/2000 in this regard. These developments resulted in filing a series of additional affidavits by the respondents narrating the facts. The incumbents that assumed office from time to time had also sworn to additional affidavits. The common plea running through all the counter affidavits is to the following effect. The father of the petitioners held two plots abutting the RP Road. According to the Master Plan, the road was to be widened to 80 feet. There existed a strip of land belonging to the Municipality in between the two plots. He purchased the strip of land. The petitioners were granted permission on 10-12-1991 to construct ground plus 1st floor. The petitioners offered to leave a set back of 10 feet towards the road for the purpose of road widening as provided for in the Master Plan and had executed an undertaking to that effect. Having obtained such a plan, the petitioners had constructed in total deviation of the plan. They have made construction on the area earmarked for road widening, on the open space on both sides and made construction of 2nd floor, without there being any permission. What was undertaken by them was only to remove the encroachments on the set backs that were left by the petitioners and they did not touch any construction made by the petitioners in accordance with the sanctioned plan. What was undertaken by them was only to remove the encroachments on the set backs that were left by the petitioners and they did not touch any construction made by the petitioners in accordance with the sanctioned plan. As regards the challenge to the Master Plan, they submit that it was published way back in the year 1974 after inviting objections from the concerned persons. The Plan provided for all the details including the set backs to be provided for on the roadside while sanctioning construction permission. The respondents contend that the petitioners were not only aware of the Master Plan but had acquiesced in it while seeking permission. In that view of the matter, it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the Master Plan after several decades. ( 3 ) SRI Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioners, sought to challenge the Master Plan with reference to the provisions of the A. P. Town Planning Act as well as the A. P. Urban Areas Development Act 1975. Having argued at length on these aspects, at one stage, he gave up the challenge to the Master Plan and confined the arguments to the action of the respondents in marking the building for the purpose of widening of the road. According to him, the petitioners constructed the building strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan, which conformed to the Master Plan. Learned counsel asserts that once the building exists in accordance with the Master Plan and the sanctioned plan, there is no justification on the part of the respondents in proposing to demolish it. He submits that if the respondents intend to widen the road, they have to acquire the requisite land together with structures thereon and it is impermissible to undertake demolition without having recourse to law. Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration Sri Y. Rama Rao, submits that the challenge of the petitioners to the Master Plan cannot be sustained for more reasons than one. According o him, the Master Plan was published way back in the year 1974 and the belated challenge to the same in the year 1998 is impermissible in law. His 2nd submission in this regard is that the petitioners were aware of the Master Plan when they submitted application seeking permission for construction in the year 1991 and made a specific reference to it. His 2nd submission in this regard is that the petitioners were aware of the Master Plan when they submitted application seeking permission for construction in the year 1991 and made a specific reference to it. Once they derived the benefit under the Master Plan as regards land use, they cannot turn round and challenge the same. It is also his case that the building line was stipulated by the Master Plan itself and various other proceedings and it was in this context that the petitioners had shown in their plan, a set back of 10 feet for the purpose of widening of the road. He contends that having secured the sanction, the petitioners had made construction on the land earmarked for set back. He submits that by resorting to one proceeding or the other, the petitioners had taken the respondents for a ride and were successful in constructing over the entire area and laying an independent floor without permission. ( 4 ) THE challenge in the writ petition is two fold. Firstly, the petitioner challenges the validity of the Master Plan published in the year 1974 through g. O. Ms. No. 46 MA dated 15-2-1974. The 2nd limb of the challenge is to the action of the respondents in putting a mark on the building for the proposed widening of the road. As observed in the preceding paragraphs, the learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions on the 1st aspect of the mater and thereafter gave it up. However, this court finds that for an effective adjudication of the matter, it is necessary to deal with the same. A. P. Town Planning Act provides for preparation and publication of Master Plans for the towns within the State, to ensure proper and systematic developments of the towns. Section 4 thereof enlists the aspects, which are to be dealt with, while preparing the Master Plan. These aspects range from layout of the vacant lands, construction, diversion, extension, alteration and improvement of roads and communications, acquisition by purchase, exchange or otherwise of land, redistribution of boundaries, provision of transport facilities, water supply, laying drainage; to preservation of buildings of archeological importance and maintenance thereof. The draft scheme with all the details is required to be published under Section 11 of the said Act. The draft scheme with all the details is required to be published under Section 11 of the said Act. After consideration of the objections within the stipulated time, the draft scheme as it is, or with such modifications as may be made, is required to be sanctioned by the State government. The final Scheme is to be published thereafter. If any person is aggrieved in this regard, arbitration is provided for under Sections 27 and 28 and an appeal against the same is provided to the concerned District Judge. Reverting to the plan that was published in the year 1974 for the Nizamabad town, it had divided the area covered by it into residential, commercial and industrial zones. The width of the road is also indicated in the plan attached to the G. O. It prescribes various details, such as, frontage of plots, number of floors, plot coverage, set backs in respect of each of such zones, etc. So far as the area in which the plots of the petitioners were located are concerned, the floor coverage area was prescribed as 60% and set backs were required to be left out from the street edge as approved from each development. The relevant clauses read as under:"3. Floor Coverage: The maximum floor coverage shall not be more than 605 of the plot area and maximum F. A. R. 1. 4. 4. Set back lines: The set back line from the street edge shall be in accordance with building line specified on the plan and as approved for each development. "on being published in the gazette dated 28-3-1974, it became final. The petitioners challenged this Master Plan in the year 1998. Even the most liberal approach as to latches cannot bring the challenge, within the permissible limits. The petitioners became the owners of the land, much before the Master Plan was prepared and published. If they felt aggrieved by any of the aspects, they could have submitted their objections. They did not choose to do so. Nor did they challenge it within any reasonable time after the publication. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that his clients were not aware of the details of the Master Plan till a mark was put on their building and it is only then that they made necessary verifications and came to know about the details of Master Plan. Even this plea is not factually correct. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that his clients were not aware of the details of the Master Plan till a mark was put on their building and it is only then that they made necessary verifications and came to know about the details of Master Plan. Even this plea is not factually correct. ( 5 ) THE petitioners submitted a plan in the year 1991 to undertake construction in the two plots together with the strip of land purchased from the 1st respondent. They intended to construct commercial premises such as shops and offices in the ground floor and the restaurant in the 1st floor. In addition to furnishing various details, he earmarked a strip of 3. 5 mts, which is approx. 10 feet with clear marking and with the following endorsements: "3. 5 m wide, affected in Master Plan" the area proposed to be constructed by him was indicated as under: cellar area. . 159. 17 sq. mts. Ground floor. . 139. 75 sq. mts. 1st floor. . 139. 75 sq. mts. They have also indicated certain open places on either side. He was accorded sanction on 10-12-1991. The 1st petitioner furnished an undertaking along with his application which reads as under:"i, Gyan Chand Gupta s/o late Sri Jeshram Gupta, resident of Rashtripati Road, nizamabad state that I have applied to the Municipality, Nizamabad for permission for construction of a commercial building bearing M. No. 7-7-997 to 1000 situated at Rashtrapati Road, Nizamabad. As per Master Plan proposals, my site is effected to an extent of 6. 32 sq. mts. in 80 wide road. In this connection I declare that I will leave my effected portion (41. 81 m2) to the Municipality, Nizamabad for road widening on free of cost and I will not claim any compensation for the said effected portion. " ( 6 ) THESE facts clearly disclose that the petitioners were not only aware of the Master Plan when they obtained the permission for construction of the building, but also had availed the benefit of the plan, be it as regards land use, frontage, or floor coverage, etc. Even assuming that the petitioners cannot be precluded from challenging the master Plan on the ground of latches and acquiescence, it needs to be seen as to whether there existed any defect in the same. Even assuming that the petitioners cannot be precluded from challenging the master Plan on the ground of latches and acquiescence, it needs to be seen as to whether there existed any defect in the same. Not a single aspect of the Master plan was pointed out to be in violation of the Town Planning Act. A vain effort was made to attack the same with reference to the provisions of the A. P. Urban areas Development Act 1975. Firstly, the Act does not apply to Nizamabad Town because no Urban Development Authority was constituted therefor. Secondly, the act came into force subsequent to the publication of the Master Plan. Strenuous contentions were made as regards the absence of street or road line. Even this plea is not available to the petitioners inasmuch as there existed a road line. The petitioners were aware of it and they volunteered to leave the set backs in conformity with the described road line. ( 7 ) THE petitioners categorically stated in the affidavit at several places that that he made the construction strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan. In Para 3 of the affidavit, it is stated as under: --"i submit that I did not construct any portion of my building encouraging any portion of the road. I submit that I have not undertaken any construction work altering or adding to the building, which I have constructed in pursuance of the sanction plan and the permission dated 10-12-1991. "in Para 5, he stated as under: --"i have constructed the building as per the sanction plan and now the same respondent has made red marks on my building to the width of 6 feet from south to north effecting my entire building from east to west from north to south. "if the petitioners had made the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan, the respondents cannot be permitted to interfere with the same in any manner. In view of the repeated assertion made by the petitioners, a claim made by them for damages against the Municipality; and denial of the same by the respondents, this court directed the Registrar (Vigilance) to undertake a personal inspection and submit a report on the following aspects: --1. What are the deviations made by the petitioner to the plan sanctioned in his favour for construction of the building? All deviations should be pointed out. 2. What are the deviations made by the petitioner to the plan sanctioned in his favour for construction of the building? All deviations should be pointed out. 2. To what extent, if any, land has been used from 15 feet strip of land to which reference has been made hereinabove. 3. To what extent constructions have been made over 10 feet wide land which the petitioner had himself undertaken to leave to the Municipality. 4. The steps, which were allegedly demolished, if possible to report in which piece of land these steps were located. 5. Are there any steps in existence over 10 feet wide land to which reference has been made hereinabove? 6. Alignment of other buildings. " ( 8 ) THIS order came to be passed in CC. No. 749/2000 filed by the petitioners, which is being heard along with the writ petition. After conducting the inspection, the Registrar (Vigilance) submitted his report. On Question No. 1, he stated that as against 60% of floor coverage, the petitioner constructed with 100% coverage. As per the sanctioned plan, 15 feet set back was to be given in the front, 5 feet each on rare side and on both sides. It is reported that the petitioners did not leave any set back on any side. The cellar, which was shown to be a parking area, was found to have been used at kitchen and stores. Staircase is reported to have been unauthorisedly constructed in the road margin. The petitioner constructed the entire 2nd floor without permission. Item no. 3 happens to be the most important aspect for the purpose of this writ petition. The Registrar pointed out that though unconditional undertaking was submitted on 5-12-1991 to leave 10 feet strip of land for widening of the road, they have constructed RCC pillars within that area and the entire strip of 10 feet is covered by construction. What the respondents demolished was only few steps that were constructed unauthorisedly in 10 feet strip, which was left for widening of the road, to lay a drain line. Having been encouraged by the interim orders passed from time to time, the petitioners had reconstructed the steps so demolished. The alignment of the building is in total deviation of the sanctioned plan and Master Plan. Having been encouraged by the interim orders passed from time to time, the petitioners had reconstructed the steps so demolished. The alignment of the building is in total deviation of the sanctioned plan and Master Plan. This discloses that the petitioners have violated the sanctioned plan and the master Plan and have virtually become a law unto themselves. For them, the set backs, floor coverage area, etc. , did not matter. With impunity, they have violated the sanctioned plan in all aspects. With a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure that the parties do not agitate the same claim before various courts, the Writ Rules provide for incorporation of a paragraph to the effect that the petitioners have not approached any court or filed any suit on the same subject matter. A statement to that effect in the affidavit is mandatory. However, the petitioners did not incorporate such a paragraph in the affidavit. The omission does not appear to be accidental. They filed OS. No. 258/1992 in the court of Principal District munsif, Nizamabad, when efforts were made by the Municipality to remove the unauthorized constructions made by them. The Municipality issued a notice as provided for under the A. P. Municipalities Act on 27-7-1992. Having obtained an interim injunction, they completed the construction. It fell to the turn of the respondents herein to file a copy of the Judgment. There is no reference to the same in the affidavit. ( 9 ) THE notice that was impugned in the suit indicated that the petitioners have been making construction without leaving any open space. The petitioners asserted that they have constructed the building strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan. On behalf of the Municipality, the Town Planning Supervisor was examined as DW. 1. He categorically stated that the petitioner did not leave the open space of 15 feet as shown in the sanctioned plan. The trial court had exhibited its shallowness when it observed that the defendants had not filed any document to show that the petitioners did not leave 15 feet open space. It found fault with the defendants for not preparing any panchanama. The trial court recorded a finding that the defendants have not established the deviations in the construction, from the sanctioned plan and held that the plaintiffs had constructed as per the plan. It found fault with the defendants for not preparing any panchanama. The trial court recorded a finding that the defendants have not established the deviations in the construction, from the sanctioned plan and held that the plaintiffs had constructed as per the plan. This finding of the trial court is belied by the report submitted by the Registrar (Vigilance ). ( 10 ) IT is true that this court is not sitting in appeal over the judgment rendered by the trial court in OS. No. 258/92. However, since it has emerged through the report called for from this court from none other than the Registrar (Vigilance) that the petitioners had deviated from the sanctioned plan, they cannot be permitted to have the advantage of such illegal construction. As a Court of record, this court is under obligation to see that no citizen misuses the process of Court, or enjoy the benefit of the orders procured by him through misrepresentation. If such things are permitted, they stare at the credibility of the institution of the judiciary as a whole. If a structure raised by the petitioners in utter violation of the sanctioned plan and Master Plan is standing on the ground, it is squarely because of the order passed by the civil court, blindly believing the version of the petitioners, in utter disregard to the basic principles of law of evidence. Unless such efforts are nipped at the proper stage, it may go into the credibility of the institution. The report submitted by the Registrar (Vigilance) cannot be rendered a futile exercise. The trial court had regularized the 2nd floor constructed by the petitioners by levying a sum of Rs. 500/- towards the compounding fee. Reliance was placed on the judgments and observations made by this court in certain cases. Compounding can be only in respect of constructions made without sanctioned plan, but in accordance with the relevant building byelaws and regulations. For example, a commercial complex constructed in a residential area cannot be regularized through the process of compounding. Similarly, where the byelaws provide for a set back to a specified extent, any construction made in deviation thereof cannot be regularized. For example, a commercial complex constructed in a residential area cannot be regularized through the process of compounding. Similarly, where the byelaws provide for a set back to a specified extent, any construction made in deviation thereof cannot be regularized. The purport of the judgment of this court in KUKATPALLY municipality vs. P. SATYANARAYANA (1990 (2) ALT 202) relied upon by the trial court, was in the context of the owner of the building himself undertaking to remove the construction as and when the road is restored to its notified extent. Therefore, whatever be the benefit that had accrued to the petitioners as regards regularization of the 2nd floor under the decree of the trial court, he cannot be permitted to retain the structures made in deviation of the set backs provided for under the sanctioned plan. ( 11 ) IT has emerged that the marking of building of the petitioners by the respondents was only to the extent it was made in the area left out in the sanctioned plan towards set back. In fact this is what is disclosed in the report submitted by the Registrar (Vigilance ). No exception can be taken to such an action. If the buildings so constructed are permitted to stand, there does not exist any possibility of giving effect to the Master Plan or widening of the road, and the public at large had to depend upon the mercy of the persons like the petitioners, who deviated from all legal norms, with impunity in the matter of construction. In their effort to protect their unauthorized construction, the petitioners have played all possible tricks, got the respondents paraded before this court and stated utter falsehoods in their affidavits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, by imposing cost of Rs. 5,000/ -.