THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19922 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is a co-operative housing society. It acquired land in Survey Nos.162 and 163 of Malkapur Revenue Village which has since become part of Ramagundam Municipality, 1st respondent herein. On an application submitted by the petitioner, the 1st respondent is said to have sanctioned lay out on 02.09.1983. The petitioner states that according to the lay out, connection is provided to the public road leading from Rajiv Rahadari to the Guest House of Singareni Collieries, respondents 2 and 3 herein (for short ‘the Company’). A wall is sad to have been constructed by the company, across the road preventing the access of the petitioner to the existing public road as well as the high way. Extensive correspondence ensued among the petitioner, 1st respondent and the company in relation thereto. The company asserted that the road from the guest house to Rajiv Rahadari exclusively belongs to it and that the petitioner has no right to use it. The wall is said to have been constructed in view of the impending threat from the extremists to the inmates of bungalows and guest house. The petitioner complains that the 1st respondent is not taking adequate steps to remove the wall and to provide access to its members and seeks appropriate directions in this regard. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that on receiving a complaint about the construction of wall blocking the access to the petitioner, discussions were held with the authorities of the company. It is stated that the Municipal Council as well as the revenue authorities have decided to acquire an extent of 19 guntas of land to provide access to the petitioner to the high way and that the company has to remit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for that purpose. The further progress in the matter is said to have suffered set back on account of non-cooperation on the part of the company. In its counter affidavit, the company stated that the road in question is entirely in their land and at no point of time, it was a public road. According to it, neither the petitioner nor any persons can have access to their private road. It is also stated that they were prepared to deposit Rs.20,00,000/-, in case necessary clarifications were issued and steps were taken by the Municipality to resolve the controversy once for all, but nothing of that sort was forthcoming. Heard Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel for respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner had access to the road laid by the company from its bunglows and guest house to the neighbouring high way. While the petitioner claims that in the lay out sanctioned to it, such a connecting road was approved, the company flatly denies it. The company built a wall across the connecting road in the year 2005. It is stated that the wall had to be constructed on account of the impending threat from extremists. In case, the road from bungalows to the national high way was laid by the 1st respondent and it is vested in it, the company does not have the right to prevent access of the others to that road. The stand taken by the 1st respondent is somewhat equivocal. On a complaint submitted by the petitioner, the letters and proceedings emanated from various authorities including the Director of Town and Country Planning and District collector. The sad state of affairs is reflected from the fact that the 1st respondent is not bale to state with clarity as to what exactly is the lay out sanctioned to the petitioner. The Director of Town and Country Planning addressed a letter dated 21.12.2006 to the effect that the public streets shall not be closed permanently without special sanction of the Government and directed the 1st respondent to remove the compound wall constructed contrary to the lay out plan. The 1st respondent addressed a letter dated 19.02.2007 to the effect that the relevant files have been disposed of and that further information is not readily available with them. It is in this background that proposals were mooted to provide alternative road for the petitioner by acquiring 19 guntas of land in the immediate neighbourhood. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli has submitted a notification and draft declaration under Sections 4(1) and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the site. However, the further steps could not be taken on account of the fact that a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was not deposited by the company. Obviously with a view to put an end to this controversy, the company expressed its willingness to deposit Rs.20,00,000/- in case necessary clarification is offered on the following aspects viz., (a) Payment of Rs.20 lakhs is full and final for acquisition of land for laying alternative road to Teachers Colony; (b) The Ramagundam will take up with the Town & Country Planning to amend the Master Plan declaring the road leading from Rajiv Rahadari to Bunglows area for SCCL as private road of SCL, and (c) On payment of Rs.20 lakhs the Ramagundam Municipality will ratify the Arch constructed by SCCL at the entrance of Bungalows area road. This was communicated through a letter dated 28.02.2007. However, nothing was forthcoming and the result is that there is deadlock. In the above background of the case, it cannot be said with certainty that the road from bunglows and guest house to the highway does not exclusively belong to the company. When the 1st respondent itself is not clear as regards its stand vis-à-vis the said road, this Court cannot express any definite opinion, much less give a clear finding. If the petitioner is so advised, it has to seek a declaration in a Civil Court about the nature and character of the said road as well as the connecting road in the lay out. An occasion would arise for the parties to lead evidence with reference to the relevant records. Even as regards working out the alternative, the company cannot be found fault with. Before it is required to part with the substantial amount, as a return for payment of such substantial amount, it is justified in expecting clarity to prevail on certain issues once for all, so that the issue does not recur. It is only the 1st respondent that can give a quietus to the issue by giving suitable replies to the queries made by the company through its letter dated 28.02.2007. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open (a) to the petitioner to approach a civil Court for determination of character of the road that connects bungalows and guest house of the company to the high way; and (b) to the 1st respondent to take further steps in the matter of providing alternative access to the petitioner duly clarifying the issues raised by the company in its communication dated 28.02.2007. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) Date: JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19922 of 2007 Date: JSU