IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18134 OF 2007 Between: Sri Maruthi Nagar Plot Owners ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18134 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is a welfare association of Sri Maruthi Nagar Plot Owners. It is stated that land in Survey Nos.121/1, 121/2 and 121/3 of Kondapur Village, was divided into plots and as many as 180 persons including the members of the petitioner association purchased the same between 1990 and 1992. According to it, a lay out existed and a 40 feet wide road connected the plots with the main road running from Mehdipatnam to BHEL, known as old Bombay high way. The petitioner contends that at one point of time, the respondents 4 to 6 attempted to construct compound wall preventing the use of the said road and by treating it as part of the land acquired by them on the either side of that road and that the efforts were resisted by filing O.S.No.1583 of 2007 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 4 to 6 have set up 7th respondent and who inturn, obtained permission from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, 3rd respondent herein, to construct compound wall including the area covered by the road. The petitioner challenges the proceedings, dated 21.07.2007, through which permission was granted to the 7th respondent. The Municipal Corporation stated that in the information furnished to it by the Tahsildar of the Sherlingampally Mandal, no road, as pointed out by the petitioner, exists. Heard Sri Krishna Prakash learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Y. Padmavathi, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation and Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. Substitute of service was effected upon the 7th respondent and he has not responded to the same. The petitioner does not claim any ownership of the land, which is sought to be encroached by a compound wall to be constructed on the basis of the impugned permission. The grievance of the petitioner is that the construction of compound wall would prevent its members from using the road, which happens to be the principal access to the road from Mehdipatnam to BHEL. The petitioner made a mention of the lay out as well as the proceedings issued by the Municipal Corporation in favour of respondent No.8 in the context of fitting of street lights for that very road. Even if the road in question is not part of any approved lay out, the Corporation is under obligation to verify as to whether it is a recognized public road. No private individual can be permitted to prevent the use of a road. It appears that the ground situation was not verified, and complete reliance was placed upon the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar. Once agricultural land has become urbanized, its complexion undergoes substantial change and the revenue authorities would not be in a position to either control or regulate it. A local inspection made by a responsible officer will put an end to the litigation. The purport of the suit that is said to be pending must also be taken into account. Hence the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned permission insofar as enabling the 7th respondent to construct compound wall preventing the use of the road in question is set aside. If the 7th respondent still insists, the 3rd respondent shall cause inspection of the road and ascertain the views of the petitioner association before any further orders are passed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J March 31, 2011 MD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18134 OF 2007 March 31, 2011