IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.13805 of 2002 Between: M/s Cosmopolitan Club, Rep. by its Secretary, Regd. Office at Suryanarayanapuram, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Bhimavaram Municipality, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. .....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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondent authority in demolishing the compound wall in R.S.No.58/2, in ward No.1, Suryanarayanapuram, Bhimavaram Town, Constructed by the petitioner club for the benefit of the Muncipal Children's play gound and park in persuence of the proceedings ROC No.1227/2001/G1, dt. 10.4.2001 of the respondent as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and is against the principles of natural justice and to issue a consequential direction to the respondent authority not to lay the road across the Municipal Park and Play ground ment for Childern in R.S.No.58/2 fo ward No.1 of Muncipal Town. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.SRINIVAS DAMMALAPATI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.13805 of 2002 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that it made a representation on 16-03-2001 seeking permission for development of the land earmarked for public amenities to establish public park and children play ground. Accordingly, the permission is accorded for development of public park and children play ground vide proceedings ROC.No.1227/2001/G1, dated 10-04-2001. It is stated that the said land was handed over to the petitioner in the month of April, 2001 for development alone. It is stated that the petitioner constructed a compound wall around the public park and children play ground. While so, the respondent threatened to demolish the compound wall to lay road across the public park and children play ground and therefore, the petitioner seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent not to lay road across the public park and children play ground. A counter has been filed stating that the petitioner has constructed compound wall around the park encroaching upon 40 feet wide road, which is existed between the petitioner’s land and the proposed Municipal park land, as per the master plan of the municipality and, therefore, the petitioner has no right or authority to encroach upon 40 feet wide road, which is obstructing free flow and the public at large are put to inconvenience. If there is a road in between the petitioner’s land and the municipal land, there cannot be any justification on the part of the petitioner to encroach upon 40 feet wide road existed in between the petitioner’s land and the municipal land. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the owner of the municipal land or the road as per the master plan. What was permitted to develop is only municipal land and that there is no permission to construct compound wall closing 40 feet wide road, which is an approved lay out road. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 18-04-2008 Prv .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ANURADHA}