THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22470 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a resident of 65th Ward of Mindi Village, Vallabharaogudi Colony, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. According to him, there exists a road serving area, but it is interrupted by a plot, owned by the second respondent. The petitioner and certain others submitted a representation on 15.05.2009 to the first respondent with a prayer to form a road across the land of the second respondent. His grievance is that no action has been taken thereon. Smt.N.Anjanadevi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the first respondent is under obligation to provide access to the residents and they are not discharging their statutory duties. Placing reliance upon Sections 384 and 387 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) which applies to the first respondent, the learned counsel contends that the first respondent is conferred with the power to take over that portion of land, which is needed to make lane or road, street or access and there is no reason why the first respondent cannot be required to discharge the statutory obligation. Sri N.Ranga Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner does not have any right to insist that a property of a private citizen must be taken over. He contends that the roads, according to the need and lay out, have already been laid and the effort of the petitioner is only to have a shortcut access to various places. It is, no doubt, true that the first respondent is vested with the power to takeover the possession of the small stretches of private properties that fall within the alignment of a public lane or street, subject to payment of compensation, under Section 387 of the Act. Much would depend upon the alignment of the lane, its utility and absence of any access to the local residents. This is not a case where the property of the second respondent is coming within the alignment of the road. According to the petitioner, the plot of the second respondent lies in between two stretches of road. In case the first respondent feels that it is essential to form a road across the land of the second respondent, necessary proceedings have to be initiated and the quantum of compensation that is required to be paid must be assessed. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot compel the first respondent to take possession of the plot of the second respondent or part thereof for the convenience and sake of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:22.10.2009 kdl