IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3572 of 2009 Between: 1.SMT.Thammu Nageswaramma,W/o. Late Sri Thammu Narayana Rao, aged about 63, Occ: Household, All R/o. H.No MIG-1126 Rep by their Regd.Agreement of Sale cum Gen. Power of Attorney Holder,(Doc.No.12333 of 2008 dated 12-08-2008 of Jt.Sub Registrar-II, R.O.(OB), Sanga Reddy, Mr.Kamal Prasad Agarwal, S/o. Sri,M.P.Agarwal, Aged 46,Occ:Business., 2.Sri.Thammu Ravi Varma,S/o. Late Sri Thammu Narayana Rao, aged about 46, Occ: Business, All R/o. H.No MIG-1126 Rep by their Regd.Agreement of Sale cum Gen. Power of Attorney Holder,(Doc.No.12333 of 2008 dated 12-08-2008 of Jt.Sub Registrar-II, R.O.(OB), Sanga Reddy, Mr.Kamal Prasad Agarwal, S/o. Sri,M.P.Agarwal, Aged 46,Occ:Business., 3.Sri.Thammu Ramesh,S/o. Late Sri Thammu Narayana Rao, aged about 43, Occ: Business, All R/o. H.No MIG-1126 Rep by their Regd.Agreement of Sale cum Gen. Power of Attorney Holder,(Doc.No.12333 of 2008 dated 12-08-2008 of Jt.Sub Registrar-II, R.O.(OB), Sanga Reddy, Mr.Kamal Prasad Agarwal, S/o. Sri,M.P.Agarwal, Aged 46,Occ:Business., 4.Sri.Thammu Venkateswara Rao,S/o. Late Sri Thammu Narayana Rao, aged about 43, Occ: BHEL, All R/o. H.No MIG-1126 Rep by their Regd.Agreement of Sale cum Gen. Power of Attorney Holder,(Doc.No.12333 of 2008 dated 12-08-2008 of Jt.Sub Registrar-II, R.O.(OB), Sanga Reddy, Mr.Kamal Prasad Agarwal, S/o. Sri,M.P.Agarwal, Aged 46,Occ:Business., 5.Sri Thammu Sreenivas Rao ,S/o. Late Sri Thammu Narayana Rao, aged about 41, Occ: APSEB Emp.,, All R/o. H.No MIG-1126 Rep by their Regd.Agreement of Sale cum Gen. Power of Attorney Holder,(Doc.No.12333 of 2008 dated 12-08-2008 of Jt.Sub Registrar-II, R.O.(OB), Sanga Reddy, Mr.Kamal Prasad Agarwal, S/o. Sri,M.P.Agarwal, Aged 46,Occ:Business., ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Industrial & Infrastructure Corporation, (A.P.I.I.C.), Rep by the Chairman and Managing Director, Office at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 Andhra Pradesh Industrial & Infrastructure Corporation (A.P.I.I.C), Rep by the Zonal Manager, office at Patencheru, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondents in not replying to the GPA Holder of Petitioners representations dated 10.02.2009 by confirming about leaving or not leaving the passage/road by acting upon the direction from the Hon'ble Chief Minister's Office through letter dated 10.02.2009 bearing No.2275/CMP/2009, as arbitrary and illegal. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.MANIK RAO Counsel for the Respondents: (SC FOR A.P.I.I.C.LTD.) K.V.SIMHADRI The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.3572 of 2009 Order: The petitioners, through their GPA holder, have filed this writ petition to declare the action of the respondent-Corporation in not taking any action on the representation, dated 10.02.2009, made by their GPA holder, requesting to provide 40’ approach road to their land, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners state that they are the absolute owners and possessors in an extent of Acs.1.11 guntas of agricultural land in Survey No.359/a of Pashamailaram village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. While so, it is the case of the petitioners that the respondents through their agents had started construction of compound wall on the northern side of their property, thereby obstructing approach to their land from the Road leading to Pashamailaram Industrial Estate. It is their case that they made representation, dated 10.02.2009, through their GPA holder to the respondent-Corporation requesting them to provide approach road of 40’, but till date no action thereon had been taken. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. The petitioners, by this writ petition, in effect, are seeking directions to the respondent-Corporation to provide them easementary right to their land. Whether the respondent-Corporation by constructing the wall are blocking access to the petitioners’ land, whether there is no other approach road to the petitioners’ land, except the land on which the respondent-Corporation are constructing the wall, and whether the petitioners are entitled to have easementary right through the land of the respondent-Corporation, are questions which cannot be gone into in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioners feel that the respondent-Corporation, by constructing the wall, are blocking their approach way to their land, then their remedy is to approach the competent civil Court seeking appropriate reliefs, but certainly they are not entitled to claim any relief under public law remedy. The writ petition is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent civil Court for redressal of their grievance. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 25.02.2009 VGB