IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 19580 of 2005 Between: Mohd. Javeed Ansari, S/o. Mohd. Esa Ansari, R/o. Ahmedi Bazar, Nizmabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 declaring the action of the respodnent or his subordiates in digging a drain in the land admeasuring 186.66 sq.yds in Ward No.7, Block No.11 in Sy.No.2802 part of Nizamabd Shivar at Islampura ( Near Masjid-3-Yaseen), Nizamabad belonging to the petitioner without acquiring the same under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and paying compensation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent or his subordinates not to dig a drain through the above land without acquiring the same under the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and paying compensation and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.S.RAMCHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: MR.POLISETTY RADHAKRISHNA (SC FOR MPL) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent or his subordinates in digging drain in the land admeasuring 186.66 square yards in Ward No.7, Block No.11 in Sy.No.2802 part of Nizamabad Shivar at Islampura (Near Masjid-e- Yaseen), Nizamabad belonging to him without acquiring the same under the Land Acquisition Act and paying compensation, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent not to dig a drain through the said land. It is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased the land admeasuring 186.66 square yards in Ward No.7, Block No.11 in Sy.No.2802 part of Nizamabad Shivar at Islampura (Near Masjid-e- Yaseen), Nizamabad vide registered sale deed dated 09.01.2002. While so, the officials of the respondent started to dig a drain of 5 feet depth in the said land from 30 feet wide road on the north and the proposed drain is about 10 feet and it’s length is 60 feet and if the drain is dug, the petitioner will be deprived of use of an area of 600 square feet in the said plot. A counter has been filed by the respondent stating that there is an existing storm water drain in the government land since a long time and the petitioner purchased a small site from its owner without there being any lay out and without leaving any open space for the roads, drains, water supply, electricity etc. With regard to the allegations of the officials of respondent starting digging of drain, have been denied stating that it is incorrect and baseless. It is stated that for the past more than decade both D-54 canal and storm water drain are in existence in the government land, in which water was flowing freely and some of the encroachers have encroached into the storm water drain and filled up soil, with a mala fide intention to grab the storm water drain land. It is stated that lot of problems caused due to the blockage of existing storm water drain as free flow of water is prevented by reason of which the water is flowing into the houses causing submergence. It is stated that the petitioner also made certain encroachments on the eastern side of their open plots where there is already storm water drain existing since quite a long time. It is further stated that the respondent has not laid storm water drain on the petitioner’s land and the respondent-Municipal Corporation has taken steps for deepening and widening of the existing storm water drain alone which is the government land. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that such disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in the writ petition and the writ petitioner is not entitled for any relief and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:25.03.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK}