IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23834 of 2008 Between: M. Jayakrishna S/o. Late Jangaiah @ Jagannadham R/o. 3-6-597, Narsa Reddy Enclave, Street NO. 8 Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Hyderabad District 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad. 3 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 4 Additional Commissioner , South Zone, Charminar, Hyderabad. 5 Assistant City Planner, Circle No.5 Hyderabad. 6 Poonamchand S/o. Mohanlal R/o. 15-5-230, Osman Shahi, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or orders Direction or Directions to declare the inaction on the part of the Respondents 1 to 5 in restoring the wire fencing consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition No. 27182/2006 by this Hon'ble Court on 2-9-2008 as illegal and to issue a consequential direction to the Respondents 1 to 5 to restore the wire fencing in Sy.No. 17 and 19 of Thotaguda Village, Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad District as it was existing prior to the orders in WPMP No. 1353/2007 in WP No. 27182/2006 dt. 23-1-2007 passed by this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of land admeasuring Acs.3.11 guntas in survey Nos.17, 18 and 19 (T.S.Nos.9, 8 and 7 respectively) in Thotaguda Village, Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad. It is stated that the said property had accrued to the petitioner by way of succession. The sixth respondent filed W.P.No.27182 of 2006, complaining that the respondents therein tried to interfere with his possession. The petitioner got himself impleaded in that writ petition. Through order, dated 02.09.2008, this Court took note of the fact that the municipality and the Government never claimed possession over the land in question and the dispute between the petitioner and the sixth respondent herein has to be resolved elsewhere. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. The petitioner contends that the municipal corporation had erected a mesh fencing covering the land and on the strength of an interim order passed in W.P.No.27182 of 2006, part of it, to the extent of 8 feet wide, was removed. This Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to direct respondents 1 to 5 to restore the fencing, in view of the dismissal of W.P.No.27182 of 2006. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, on the one hand, and the sixth respondent, on the other hand, filed counter-affidavits. It is brought to the notice of this Court that a suit was already filed by the sixth respondent for the relief of injunction against the petitioner and that not only the suit was decreed, but also appeal filed against it was dismissed. S.A.No.1102 of 2001 is said to be pending. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Revenue; learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the sixth respondent. It is a matter of record that there is long pending dispute between the petitioner, on the one hand, and the sixth respondent, on the other hand, vis-à-vis the land in question. W.P.No.27182 of 2006 was filed by the sixth respondent, complaining interference with his possession by the authorities of the municipal corporation. At one stage of the writ petition, an interim order was passed directing that the excess land of the petitioner be not curbed. At the hearing of the said writ petition, it ultimately emerged that the municipal corporation did not make any claim or ownership vis-à- vis the land and the fencing erected by it was only a part of river conservation scheme. It is, however, mentioned that the land belongs to the Government. This Court would have certainly acceded to the request of the petitioner, had it been a case where the fencing erected by the municipal corporation was done as a measure to protect the property i.e. land. It has already been mentioned that the fencing was erected as a river conservation measure. Further, it is only a recent development. The dispute between the petitioner and the sixth respondent was pending since long. In case, the petitioner was able to enjoy the property till 2006 when the fencing was erected, it is not known as to how his right of enjoyment is hampered. Further, if the fencing is re-erected preventing access to the land, it would certainly impinge the right of enjoyment of the petitioner. At any rate, second appeal is pending before this Court, as regards the right of enjoyment of the petitioner, on the one hand, and the sixth respondent, on the other hand. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies in the pending second appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dated:19.01.2009 GJ