THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8926 of 2011 Date:06.04.2011 Between: D.Kondal Reddy and another ..... Petitioners AND The Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms.S.V.Indira Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, standing counsel for Endowments The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare that the petitioners are entitled for a right of way in survey Nos.388 and 389 from Yadagirigutta to Mallapur Road, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, in order to have access to their land admeasuring Ac.0.37 cents in survey Nos.388 and 389. The petitioners pleaded that an extent of Acs.8.13 guntas of land in survey Nos.387 to 389 belonging to them and some others was acquired by respondent No.3. It is their further pleaded case that behind the said land, which is situated beside Yadagirigutta to Mallapur road, the petitioners were left with Ac.0.37 cents of land, which has no access except through the land acquired by respondent No.3. When the access was blocked, the petitioners were stated to have made a representation to the Executive Officer of respondent No.3 apart from making a similar representation to the District Collector. The grievance of the petitioners is that neither of the recipients of the representations has taken any action to solve the petitioners’ problem. After hearing Smt.S.V.Indira, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, learned standing counsel for Endowments, representing respondent No.3, I am of the opinion that the right claimed by the petitioners is purely a common law right. If respondent No.3 favourably responds to the petitioners’ representation, they can have an access to their lands. On the contrary, if the petitioners’ claim is denied, they have to necessarily establish their easementary right before the competent civil Court. Respondent No.3 is, therefore, directed to consider the petitioners’ representation said to have been made to its Executive Officer within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioners. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the decision so communicated, they are entitled to invoke the common law remedy of a civil suit for establishing their right of easement of necessity. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.11078 of 2011 of the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 06th April, 2011 GHN