Judgment : The following Draft Variation to the roads notified in the Revised Master Plan 2020 for Ramchandrapuram zone was proposed by the 3rd respondent-State Government vide Memo No.10720/I/2010-5, MA & UD, dated 3.12.2010 in exercise of its powers under Section 15(1) of Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 (for brevity ‘the Act’). “The Master Plan road of 45 mtrs. wide road passing through Sy.Nos.97 & 98 of Madeenaguda Village and in Sy.Nos.54 and 320/2 of Chandanagar (V) up to a stretch of about 450 mts. is now proposed to be re-aligned along the existing 9 mtsrs. wide road by widening on both sides which passes through Sy.Nos.320/1 & 319 of Chandanagar Village upto stretch of about 450 Mtrs. in place of 45 Mts., deletion portion is designated adjacent land use as per Master Plan, subject to out come of the Court cases pending if any.” 2. The said proposal was published in the extraordinary issue of A.P. Gazette No.693, dated 6.12.2010 inviting objections/suggestions from the public to be submitted within 15 days from the date of publication. The said proposal was also published in local newspapers, viz., Indian Express (English daily) and Surya (Telugu daily) on 18.12.2010 as required under Section 15(3) of the Act. 3. No objections/suggestions were received including from the petitioners. The 3rd respondent-State Government therefore confirmed the aforesaid proposal vide G.O.Ms.No.22, MA & UD Department dated 12.01.2011. 4. Petitioner Nos.2 to 14 are the members of the 1st respondent-welfare society. They own plots in Sy.No.320/1 of Chandanagar village. The re-aligned Master Plan Road as per the aforesaid Notifications passes through the plots of the petitioners. Hence they have challenged the aforesaid notifications in this writ petition. 5. Briefly stated, the writ averments are that, land admeasuring Ac.10.30 guntas situated in Sy.No.320/1 of Chandanagar Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, originally belonged to Vantala Lingaiah and other members of his family. The said owners obtained a layout from Chandanagar Gram Panchayat, dividing the land into 88 plots. There is a 30 ft. wide road in the layout passing through the land in Sy.No.320/1. Petitioners 2 to 14 are owners of some of the plots in the said layout. The said owners obtained a layout from Chandanagar Gram Panchayat, dividing the land into 88 plots. There is a 30 ft. wide road in the layout passing through the land in Sy.No.320/1. Petitioners 2 to 14 are owners of some of the plots in the said layout. Some of the members of the petitioner-society, who owned plots, have submitted applications for regularization under A.P. Regulation of Un-approved and Illegal Layout Rules, 2007 issued in G.O.Ms.No.902 MA & UD dated 31.12.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.113 MA & UD dated 31.01.2008. Some of the plots are said to have been regularized and some applications are said to be pending. 6. The petitioners further aver that initially Master-plan was proposed to be revised by the Government without affecting their plots. A notification was published in the A.P. Gazette dated 31.05.2007 as required under Section 12(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Area (Development) Act, 1975, and after taking into consideration the objections received thereto, the proposal was approved vide G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 3.04.2008. Under Item No.93 clause (d) of Annexure-II of the said G.O., 45 meters width road was designated connecting Old Bombay highway with New Bombay highway passing through Sy.Nos.49, 50, 48 etc., of Madeenaguda village and Sy.Nos.73, 85, 83 of Serilingampally village. The petitioners are not affected by the said notification. However, attempts were made by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Authorities to lay a road by widening the 30 ft. road existing on the land of the petitioners in Sy.No.320/1 contrary to the aforesaid notification. The petitioners challenged the said action in W.P.No.27661 of 2009 as opposed to the notification in G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 3.04.2008 and obtained an interim order interdicting the widening of road (The said W.P. was heard along with this W.P. and is dismissed as the cause required no adjudication on merits in view of the challenge to the revised plan in this Writ Petition). 7. Petitioners aver that they were not aware of the impugned notifications until 31.1.2011 when the authorities started marking their plots. According to them the impugned proposals are contrary to Section 15 and not in public interest, and are approved by the State Government only to favour respondent No.7. They plead that they belong to middle income groups and construction of road through their land would deprive them of their plots which they have purchased for constructing houses for residential purpose. 8. They plead that they belong to middle income groups and construction of road through their land would deprive them of their plots which they have purchased for constructing houses for residential purpose. 8. The 3rd respondent-State Government filed counter affidavit. It is stated that the Vice-Chairman, HUDA submitted a proposal to the Government for realignment of proposed 150 ft. wide road passing through Sy.Nos.97 and 98 of Madeenaguda village suggesting two alternatives, as follows : “Proposal(A): In view of the existing 30 ft. WBM road parallel to the proposed 45 m. (150 ft.) Master plan road, the said proposed 45 m. Master plan be realigned along the existing 30 ft. road (i.e., 75 ft. from the center of the 30 ft. existing road). In such case, the developments abutting the existing 30 ft. road would be affected. Proposal (B): In view of the existence of a 30 ft. road from Manjeera pipeline road to NH 9 and to avoid bifurcation of land in Sy.Nos.97 and 98 by the proposed 45 m. (150 ft.) Master Plan road, an alternative proposal may be considered making the said existing 30 ft. road to 60 ft. and 80 ft. road all along the western boundary of land in Sy.Nos.97 and 98 and joining the proposed 60 ft. road near the Manjeera pipeline road; and enclosed the Sketch Plan showing both suggested alignments.” 9. The Government examined the aforesaid proposals and agreed for the proposal (A) since proposal (B) would result in formation of two parallel roads and two junctions on the National Highway No.9 at a very short distance, which is not desirable from planning point of view. The Government, therefore, directed the 5th respondent vide letter No.4629/II/2007, dated 10.05.2007 for realignment of the proposed 150 ft. wide Master plan road along with the existing 30 ft. wide road by proposing it by widening the revised Draft Master Plan 2020 by paying reasonable compensation to the land and building owners affected in the road widening. 10. The counter further states that though the Government agreed for the proposal (A), by oversight it was not incorporated while publishing the approved revised Master Plan in G.O.Ms.No.288, MA & UD Department, dated 03-04-2008. 10. The counter further states that though the Government agreed for the proposal (A), by oversight it was not incorporated while publishing the approved revised Master Plan in G.O.Ms.No.288, MA & UD Department, dated 03-04-2008. The said omission was brought to the notice of the Government by the 8th respondent and on a representation made in that regard, the matter was examined in consultation with the Metropolitan Commissioner-5th Respondent herein and having ascertained that the decision of the Government was not incorporated by oversight, it was decided to implement the said decision to align the Master Plan road passing through Sy.No.320/1 along with 30 feet wide road by widening on both sides. Accordingly, exercising the powers under Section 15(1) of Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008, a revised draft variation was published in the extra-ordinary issue of the A.P. Gazette No.693, Part-I, dated 06-12-2010 and also published in the local newspapers (1) Indian Express; (2) Surya on 18-12-2010 as required under sub-Section 3 of Section 15 inviting objections/suggestions to be submitted within 15 days. No objections/suggestions were received from the public, therefore the proposal was confirmed vide G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 12-01-2011. The confirmation orders were published in the extra-ordinary issue of A.P.Gazette No.32, dated 20-01-2011 as required under sub-Section (4) of Section 15. The counter further states that the said decision was taken after examining the proposal of the Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority and a further report from the Metropolitan Commissioner, HMDA. The Government has not shown any favour to the 7th respondent and the decision was taken duly following the procedure under the Act. 11. The 5th Respondent-Metropolitan Commissioner, HMDA filed counter on the similar lines inter alia stating that the decision of the Government to re-align the master plan (A) road along with the existing 30 feet road as per the proposal (A) was not carried out by it due to oversight while preparing the revised master plan. 12. Respondent No.7 has filed counter-affidavit which says that as the original proposal to connect the National Highway was passing through land situated in Sy.Nos.97 and 98 dividing it into two pieces, representation was made by the land owners to the State Government through their letter dated 19-11-2005 suggesting an alternative to widen the existing road which would minimize the expenditure and also avoid an unnecessary parallel road. The 7th respondent has denied the allegations that favour has been done to it by the State Government. It is asserted that the alignment has been conceived on its own merits taking into consideration the desirability and technical feasibility after following the due procedure. 13. The 8th respondent has filed a separate counter more or less similar to the 7th Respondent. The counter further states that objections to the original proposal was submitted by it on 19-11-2005 to the State Government pointing out the loss it would suffer if the proposal was carried out and to widen the existing 30 feet road as an alternative. It has denied that favour has been conferred by the State Government. 14. Heard Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Smt. Y. Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC for respondent Nos.4 & 6, Sri M. Dhananjay Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, Sri E. Ajay Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 and Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8. 15. It is not in dispute that the original proposal was mooted to connect old Bombay road with the National Highway through the land of the 8th Respondent situated in Sy.Nos.97 and 98 of Madeenaguda Village and a final notification in that regard was issued in G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 03-04-2008. Prior to the said notification, the 8th respondent being the owner of the land in S.Nos.97 and 98, submitted a representation dated 19.11.2005 opposing the proposal and suggested that instead of laying the road through Sy.Nos.97 and 98 and other notified survey numbers, the 40 ft. road already existing could be widened to minimize the expenditure for the State and without causing loss to it. Considering the merits of the said representation, HUDA sent two alternative proposals, i.e., Proposal (A) and Proposal (B), which are extracted above, to the State Government. The Government accepted Proposal (A), but it was not implemented while publishing the final notification in G.O.Ms.No.288 dated 3.04.2008. 16. In the circumstances, a revised draft variation was proposed vide Memo.No.10720/I/2010-5, MA & UD, dated 03-12-2010 and objections were invited by publishing the same in the A.P. Gazette, dated 06-12-2010. The said proposal was also published in two daily newspapers viz., Indian Express and Surya on 18-12-2010. 16. In the circumstances, a revised draft variation was proposed vide Memo.No.10720/I/2010-5, MA & UD, dated 03-12-2010 and objections were invited by publishing the same in the A.P. Gazette, dated 06-12-2010. The said proposal was also published in two daily newspapers viz., Indian Express and Surya on 18-12-2010. A perusal of the said notification shows that 15 days time from the date of notification was allowed for submitting the objections. The public notification also permitted 15 days time from the date of the said publication in that regard. No objections/representations were made either by the petitioners or others either in response to the gazette notification or the public notification. A final notification was therefore issued in G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 12-01-2011. 17. The impugned notifications are primarily challenged as opposed to Section 15(3) of the Act. According to the learned counsel Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, modification of a Plan cannot be made unless the proposal is notified giving 30 days time for submitting objections. According to the counsel, though sub-section (3) of Section 15 does not specifically require that 30 days time should be allowed, the same shall have to be inferred in the light of the constitutional right of the petitioners in respect of the immovable properties and the scheme of the Act. The learned counsel placed reliance on B. Venkatagiri and others v. State of A.P. and others2002 Suppl. (1) ALD 728 (D.B.)and would argue that the prescribed procedure must be strictly followed. 18. I am unable to accept the contention. Section 15 empowers the Metro Development Authority or the Government as the case may be to make modifications to the Plans. The Metropolitan Commissioner shall in such a case prepare a report together with necessary plan with such modification and submit to the State Government for approval and after the approval is given the modification so made shall come into operation from the date of publication of the same in the A.P. Gazette and newspapers. The power of the State Government or the Metro Development authority to make modifications to the plan is thus indisputable. 19. For better appreciation of the contention it is useful to traverse Section 15 (3) of the Act, which is as follows : “15. The power of the State Government or the Metro Development authority to make modifications to the plan is thus indisputable. 19. For better appreciation of the contention it is useful to traverse Section 15 (3) of the Act, which is as follows : “15. Modifications to the Metropolitan Development Plan and Investment Plan :- (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) xxxx xxxx xxxx (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 Andhra Pradesh 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.” 20. From the plain reading of the aforesaid provision, which relates to modification of plans, it is clear that no period is fixed for submitting objections/suggestions. It only requires that objections/suggestions shall be invited specifying the date in the notice. It is left to the discretion of the Government or the Metro Development Authority, as the case may be, to fix the period for submitting objections. It does not appear that it is the intention of the legislature to fix the period in so far as the modifications are concerned. Section 11 read with Section 13 makes this position clear. Section 11 relates to preparation of fresh Plans. For preparation of fresh plans, procedure is prescribed under Section 13, which says that the proposed plans shall be notified in the prescribed manner inviting objections and suggestions giving a minimum of one month time. Such a stipulation is conspicuously absent in Section 15 (3). In the absence of prescription in the legislation in that regard, it is not the function of the Court to prescribe the period. In fact, omission to fix the period in Section 15 (3) appears to be intentional because in the case of fresh plans more time is necessary for submitting objections, whereas equal amount of time is not necessary for modifications. What all can be said is that though the period is not fixed, reasonable time should be allowed for filing objections. In fact, omission to fix the period in Section 15 (3) appears to be intentional because in the case of fresh plans more time is necessary for submitting objections, whereas equal amount of time is not necessary for modifications. What all can be said is that though the period is not fixed, reasonable time should be allowed for filing objections. In the instant case, indisputably 15 days time was allowed not only from the date of application of the gazette but also from the date of publication of the notification in the newspapers, which cannot be said to be insufficient or unreasonable. 21. The counsel would, however, contend that the cut off date should be specifically indicated in the notification. According to the counsel, if the cut off date is not indicated, it would lead to confusion and it may result in indicating different dates in the gazette notification and the notifications in the newspapers. It is not possible to accept the said contention because all that is contemplated under Section 15 (3) is that the period within which the objections have to be filed should be specified. The impugned notification satisfies the said requirement which has granted 15 days time from the date of publication of the notification in the gazette and equal amount of time even from the date of the publication in the newspapers. 22. It is further contended that the authorities have undertaken the exercise at the behest and for the benefit of the 7th respondent with the mala fide intention to deprive the petitioners of their plots. 23. I am unable to accept the contention. Firstly as noticed earlier, the proposal was approved only after following the due procedure and inviting objections from the public through newspapers dated 18.12.2010 in addition to the publication in the Gazette dated 6.12.2010. The petitioners were not prevented from submitting their objections. It is difficult to presume that not even one among the petitioners or the office bearers including the president, who is the deponent in the writ petition, could not notice the publication of draft proposals. Even otherwise, once the publication was made in the Gazette and the newspapers, law imputes knowledge to the petitioners. If really the proposal was intentionally made to benefit the 7th respondent, there is no reason why the petitioners could not submit their representations. Even otherwise, once the publication was made in the Gazette and the newspapers, law imputes knowledge to the petitioners. If really the proposal was intentionally made to benefit the 7th respondent, there is no reason why the petitioners could not submit their representations. As noticed earlier, the proposal was under consideration even before the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.288 dated 3.04.2008. No doubt, by virtue of the modification laying of road is shifted from the land of the 8th respondent to pass through the plots of the petitioners. No inference as to mala fide exercise of power can be inferred from that so long as the modification is made in a transparent manner in public interest. The exercise undertaken by the HUDA shows that laying the road through Sy.Nos.97 and 98 was found resulting in formation of two parallel roads and two junctions on the National Highway at a short distance which is not desirable from planning point of view. Therefore it cannot be held that the impugned notifications are mala fide and are intended to benefit the 7th respondent. 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ravi Kiran Rao, would contend that the petitioners are middle income group people and some of them have purchased plots with their retirement benefits to construct houses for residential purpose, whereas the respondents 7 and 8 are promoting commercial ventures, therefore, the interest of the petitioners requires paramount consideration. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Dev Sharan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2011) 4 SCC 769 . 25. The said decision was rendered in the context of acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act in which it was observed that in construing public purpose, focus must be on ensuring maximum benefit to the largest number of people and any attempt by the State to acquire land to benefit a particular group of people or to serve any particular interest at the cost of the interest of a larger section of people, defeats the very concept of public purpose. But in a case like the instant one, desirability and technical feasibility are also relevant factors and such considerations would promote larger public interest and outweigh the interests of the individual plot owners as held by the Apex Court in Jayabheri Properties Private Limited and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2010) 5 SCC 590 . 26. For the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 27. Consequently, W.V.M.P.Nos.1641 & 1682 of 2011 and W.P.M.P.No.5175 of 2011 are dismissed as unnecessary.