IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 246 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 23/07/2007 in WP NO : 15566 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Sri K. Satish, S/o. Sushila naidu, R/o.Flat No.202, H.No.3-1-44, Sri Sai Apartments, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Governmentof A.P., Department of Revenue (UC-II), rep. by its Prl., Secretary. 2 The Special Officer, & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyd. 3 The mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad District. 4 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tankbund,Hyd, rep. byits Commissioner. 5 Sri Mohd. Samiuddin, S/o. Mohd. Moinuddin, R/o. D.No.8-3-231/133/B, Krishna Nagar, Yousuffguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : MR.VENKATESWARLU POSANI Counsel for the Respondents1 to 3 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.4 : SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE Counsel for Respondent No.5 : MR.RAMMOHAN REDDY FOR MR.V.MANOHAR RAO The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 246 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy) This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in writ petition No.15566 of 2007 aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, dated 23rd July 2007. In the writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the orders of endorsement dated 4th December 2003 passed by the 2nd respondent and further orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1144, Revenue (UC.II) Department, dated 15.11.2003. The appellant/petitioner claims to be the owner of a piece of residential site admeasuring 236 square yards covered by Plot No.54 in Survey Nos.403/8, 9, 10 and 11 situated at Banjara Hills in the limits of Shaikpet Revenue Village of Hyderabad. It is stated that he purchased the said site by registered sale deed No.826/1981. It is the case of the petitioner that the said residential site falls in the lay out of Women Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad, and adjoining the same, there is another colony by name Krishna Nagar Colony and in between these two colonies, there is a 50 feet wide road. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the 5th respondent was in occupation of the road by encroachment, inspite of the same, the respondent authorities have passed orders regularizing the land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The learned single Judge, after noticing the abnormal delay and latches on the part of the petitioner, has dismissed the writ petition. In this appeal, it is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that earlier, respondent No.5 has obtained permission under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act for construction of a building on the very same site, and on the representation made by the petitioner, said orders were withdrawn. It is submitted that inspite of his objection, respondent - authorities have illegally extended the benefit to the 5th respondent through G.O.Ms.No.455, Revenue (UC-I) Department, dated 29.07.2002. On the other hand, it is the case of the 5th respondent that he has not encroached neither the land belonging to the Women Co-operative Society nor any approach road, as pleaded by the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondent No.5 had already filed suits in O.S.Nos.1843 and 1583 of 2005 before the Court of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration of his right, title and possession and the said Court has already decreed the suits filed by him. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the orders under challenge. The regularization, which is ordered by impugned proceedings, is regularization of the excess land found under the provisions of the Act. In the writ petition, it is not possible to record any finding, in the absence of any evidence and material, on the plea of the petitioner that the land, which is in occupation of respondent No.5, is an encroachment of the public road. If there is any encroachment by respondent No.5 on any public road as pleaded by the petitioner, it is always open for him to approach the competent authority for removal of such encroachment under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. But, however, merely because the impugned orders are issued for regularizing the excess vacant land under the Act, it is not open for the petitioner to question the validity of the said orders on the allegation of alleged encroachment by the 5th respondent. Moreover, as rightly held by the learned single Judge, the impugned orders were issued in the year 2003 and the writ petition itself was filed in the year 2007, and there is no valid explanation to explain the abnormal delay and latches on the part of the writ petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge and do not find any valid ground to interfere with the reasoned order passed in the writ petition. Appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 23rd July 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs/ajr TO 1 The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (UC-II), Governmentof A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer, & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad District. 4 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tankbund,Hyderabad.