IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 31134 of 1997 Between: Abdul Rawoof S/o.Mohd.Abdul Jabbar R/o.H.No.3-1-313,Kakatiya Colony Hanumakonda Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Warangal. 2 The Vice Chairman Kakatiya Urban Development Authority Warangal. 3 The District Collector Warangal 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 an order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.1 and 2 in taking steps to lay pucca road in the land belong to the petitioner who is in peaceful possession and uninterrupted enjoyment of house and site in extension of 662.66 sq.yards situated in ward.no.3,Kakatiya Colony, Hanumakonda having house bearing No.31-51/C (old) and (New) 3-1-313 and thereby interfering with peaceful and possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the above said property is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents No.1 and 2 not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house bearing No.3151/C (old) and (new) 3-1-313 and site in an extent of 662.66 sq.yards situated in ward No.3,Kakatiya Colony, Hanumkonda in any manner whatsoever and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.VENUGOPAL REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 31134 of 1997 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of 662.66 square yards of land, equivalent to 535 square metres, in Ward No.3, Kakatiya Colony, Hanumakonda, bearing house No.3-1-51/C (old) and 313 (new). He approached the civil Courts on three occasions by filing O.S.Nos.512 of 1974, 109 of 1975 and 928 of 1985, when he faced threat from the officials of the erstwhile Warangal Municipality and its successor, the Municipal Corporation. The suits were mostly for the relief of injunction and were said to have been decreed. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such decrees, the respondents are interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the property and seeks appropriate directions in this regard. On behalf of respondents, the first respondent filed a counter- affidavit. It is stated that even while claiming to be the owner of an extent of 535 square metres, the petitioner submitted a plan for construction of a house over a plot of 246.66 square metres and the permission was accorded, duly marking 30 feet wide road, as per lay out L.P.No.32 of 1976. It is stated that the petitioner did not object for such communication and that the Corporation did not take any steps to demolish the building, which is constructed in accordance with the plan. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The respondent-Corporation does not make any claim of ownership over the land claimed by the petitioner. It is a matter of record that several suits ensued between the parties, in the context of using a strip of 30 feet wide road. While according to the petitioner, no road passed through his property, the respondents categorically plead that in the sanctioned plan itself a 30 feet wide road was marked. In case the petitioner felt aggrieved by the marking of road in his sanctioned plan, he ought to have taken steps before the competent authority. As long as the permission accorded to the petitioner was subject to the existence of a road, marked therein, the petitioner cannot object for the steps taken by the respondents to lay road in the marked portion. At the same time, the respondents cannot touch the building or other portion, without initiating the necessary proceedings in accordance with law. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that: a) the respondents shall not touch any structure which is raised by the petitioner on his property in accordance with the sanctioned plan b) it shall be open to the respondents to lay or reinforce the road in the portion marked in the sanctioned plan c) in case, the respondents need any other property belonging to the petitioner for laying or widening the road, they shall be under obligation to initiate proceedings under the relevant provisions of law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ Dt.27.11.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ