IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 833 OF 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 21/08/2008 in WP NO : 17291 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: P. Nagabhushanam ... APPELLANT AND 1 G. Srinivas Reddy and six others ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M. Govind Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy Counsel for Respondent No. 5: Sri m. Dhananjay Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.6 and 7: Smt. Kalpana Ekbote The Court made the following: ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 21-08-2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 17391 of 2008, this appeal has been preferred by the third party as he claims to have been aggrieved by the said order. 2. The case of the appellant, in a nutshell, is that he is the owner of a piece of land bearing Survey No. 18 situated at Guttalabegumpet Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. A layout in respect of adjoining land bearing Survey No.19 had been sanctioned in the past and as per the said layout, a road had been carved, which had been vested in respondent No. 7 – Municipality. Subsequently, the said layout had been cancelled and as a result thereof, the alignment whereby the land which had been vested in respondent No. 7 – Municipality had been divested and, therefore, the appellant would not be having an access to the main road. In view of the fact that the layout of an adjoining owner had been cancelled, the road which has been gifted to respondent No. 7 – Municipality by the owner of the land did not remain property of respondent No. 7 and it again belonged to the adjoining owner and as a result thereof, the layout showing the road did not exist at all. The appellant is aggrieved because he would not be having any access to the main road. 3. In our opinion, the grievance of the appellant is not well founded for the reason that he cannot constrain the adjoining owner to prepare a layout in a particular manner. Of course, according to the appellant, when the layout had been prepared, he was made to understand that the adjoining owner was having the layout in such a manner that he would be in a position to use the road carved by the adjoining owner, from his land. 4. As stated hereinabove, the layout of the adjoining owner had been subsequently cancelled and, therefore, the gift of land forming part of his layout had also been cancelled and, therefore, the appellant would not be in a position to have access to the main road. Even if the said grievance of the appellant might be correct, looking to the legal position, it would not be possible for this Court or any authority to constrain the adjoining owner to prepare his layout in a particular manner. The appellant can therefore make a representation to the Zonal Commpissioner of respondent No. 7, who has been permitted by the Vice-Chairman of Cyberabad Land Development Authority to examine the entire matter de novo. We are sure that if the appellant files his objections before the Zonal Commissioner of respondent No. 7, he shall look into the same and do the needful. 6. The appeal stands disposed of as dismissed, subject to the aforestated observations. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th August, 2009 ks