IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 4112 of 2001 AND WRIT PETITION No.25186 of 2001 WRIT PETITION NO.4112 of 2001 Between: Smt. D.Lakshminarasamma W/o Sri D.P.Yellaiah, D/o Sri. K. Mysaiah R/o H.No.16-1-486/B-3, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Park and Development) Hyderabad. 3 The Executive Engineer, Circle No.1, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 4 The Secretary, Adimavasi (Erukula) Co-operative Housing Society Kurmaguda, Saidabad, 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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in trying to develop the park in the land bearing Survey Nos.226 and 227 of an exten of Ac.3.12 guntas situated at Saidabad, is contrary to the orders passed by the Supreme Court of India, dated 6-10-1995 in I.A.No.4 of 1993 in Civil Appeal No. 3302 of 1993 as being illegal, arbitrary,capricious and malafide and further direct the respondent authorities not to develop the land into park. WRIT PETITION NO : 25186 of 2001 Between: Smt.D.Lakshminarasamma, W/o. Sri D.P.Yellaiah, D/o. K.Mysaiah, R/o. H.No.16-1-486B3, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Managing Director, Hyderabad Metropoliten Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Khairatbad, Hyderabad. 3 The General Manager (Executive Engineer) Operation and Maintenance Division No.II, Asman Gadh, Office at Goshamahal, M.J.Road, Hyderabad 4 The Secretary, Adimavasi (Erukula) Co-Op. Housing Society, Kurmaguda, Saidabad, 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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent authority laying, the roads, digging for the purposes of laying water pipes Sewerage pipes, without following the procedure contemplated under law, in Survey Nos.226 and 227 of an extent of Ac.3.12 guntas situated at Saidabad, Hyderabad, as per the decree in Civil Appeal No.3302 of 1993 dt. 22.11.2001 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, when the land has to be demarcated, as being illegal, arbitrary, capricious, malafide. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI SYED SHAREEF AHMED Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION Nos.4112 and 25186 of 2001 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are filed by one Smt.D.Lakshminarasamma, who claims title and possession in respect of Ac.3.12 guntas of land situated in Sy.Nos.226 and 227 of Saidabad village, Hyderabad. In W.P.No.4112 of 2001, the petitioner sought a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents in trying to develop a park in the land in question as arbitrary and illegal, whereas in W.P.No.25186 of 2001, the action of the respondents in proposing to lay the road and water pipes and sewerage pipes in the land in question without following the procedure contemplated under law, is assailed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the material on record, the petitioner filed O.S.No.3226 of 1980 on the file of the Court of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in Sy.Nos.226 and 227 and the same was decreed as prayed for on 26.06.1987. The 4th respondent, which was also a party to the said suit, filed A.S.No.148 of 1987. The said appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 20.06.1989, upholding the right and title of the petitioner in respect of the land in question. Subsequently, S.A.No.448 of 1989 and S.A.No.656 of 1989 filed by the rival claimants as well as the 4th respondent Society were dismissed by this Court, by judgment dated 29.06.1992. The said judgment was also confirmed by the Supreme Court, by order dated 22.11.2001. Having regard to the above undisputed facts, the respondents 1 to 3, if intend to take any steps either for constructing a park or for laying road and water pipes or sewerage pipes, they are bound to follow the due process of law. Without taking necessary steps as contemplated under law for acquisition of the land required for the above said purposes, the respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, in respect of the land in question, without following due process of law. No costs. __________ G.ROHINI,J 16.03.2009 v v