IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2091 of 2005 Between: A. Ram prasad, S/o. late AMV Prasada Rao, R/o. 8-2-601, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500 034. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 2 The commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 Mr. Rajendra Kumar Tarmakdas, S/o. Tarmakdas, R/o. 8-2-602, Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500 034. .....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 grant a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in laying a road across the property of the petitioner in Sy.No. 129/57 corresponding to T.S. NO. 8/2, Block M, Ward-11 of Shaikpet village situated at Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, is illegal, arbitrary and violtive of the provisions of Aritcle 300-A of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this HOn'ble Court may deem fit. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2091 of 2005 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that his father purchased the land admeasuring Ac.1-31 gts. in Sy.No.129/57 situated at Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, in a public auction conducted by the Ministry of Rehabilitation and a Sale Certificate, dated 10-04-1961 was also issued. After the death of his father, the petitioner succeeded to the said property. It is stated that under the guise of developing the property of the 3rd respondent, respondents 1 and 2 are laying road across the property of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in laying road across the property of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. A counter has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 stating that the respondents never made any attempt to lay a new road and there is an old existing WBM road and the petitioner has blocked the existing road by dumping large boulders on it and also tried to construct a wall on the road. The respondents removed those boulders and repaired the road immediately on the same day, as the road was badly damaged due to dumping of boulders. It is further stated that the respondents neither formed any new road nor proposed any widening of the existing road. In view of the aforesaid counter that no new road is being laid through the property of the petitioner, the question of laying road across the property of the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, I do not find any merit 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. __________ 03-03-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}