IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5632 of 2002 Between: 1 N. Hanumantha Rao, S/o. Kistaiah, H.No.1-52/2, Venkateswaranagar Colony, Uppal, R.R. District. 2 Ms. N. Krishnaveni, Minor, D/o. Hanumantha Rao, Rep. by her Guardian natural Father D. Hanumanth Rao, H.No.1-52/2, Venkateswaranagar Colony, Uppal, R.R. District. 3 N. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Hanumantha Rao, H.No.1-52/2, Venkateswaranagar Colony, Uppal, R.R. District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, R.R. District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner, Uppal Kalan Municipality, Uppal, R.R.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 may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not taking action on the representation Dt.16/01/1992, 17/01/92, 18/03/92, 30/11/92, 24/12/92, 20/09/93, 19/11/96, 19/11/1996, 23/12/1996, 26/12/96, 20/03/97 and 28/02/2002 and the inaction of the respondents to take further action pursuant to the report of the Deputy Surveyor of the 3rd Respondent's office as mentioned in Lr.No.G6/3329/92, Dt.17/2/97 and demarcating both sides measuring the same from the existing road centre for road widening instead of restoring the 60 Ft. Road as per the revenue records and Village maps as arbitrary illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore the road admeasuring 60 Ft. as per the revenue records and 66 Ft. as per the village map. Counsel for petitioners: MR.S.ASHOK ANAND KUMAR Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: G.P., Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy The Court made the following Order: Petitioners seek a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering various representations stated to have been made by them, right from 16-01-1992, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. Petitioners claim to be the owners of land covered by Sy.No.672 of Uppal village admeasuring Ac.2.31 guntas. It is their grievance that house-site pattas were granted to the weaker sections of the society in Sy.No.680 of Shanti Nagar, Uppal, and the patta holders have encroached the road leading from Uppal village main to Musi River via Shanti Nagar. It is stated that though the existing road is 60 ft. wide, by allowing the aforesaid patta holders to encroach upon the said road, the petitioners are sought to be dispossessed from their land without due process of law to maintain 60 ft.-wide road. 3. A counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit are filed by the third respondent. In the additional counter affidavit, it is stated that as much as certain material aspects were not noted before filing counter affidavit earlier and as subsequently some relevant things have come to light, they have filed the additional counter affidavit. The allegation of the petitioners that 60 ft. road is maintained is denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. It is stated that though 60 ft. road was proposed from PWD main road to Musi river through Shanti Nagar, however the same has not been maintained at any point of time. It is further stated that there was revision of layout in the year 1975 and in the revised layout, the road portion is shown only as 25 ft., but not 60 ft. as alleged by the petitioners. 4. The writ petition itself is founded on the premise that the existing road is of 60 ft. width. However, in the counter affidavit, it is stated that 60 ft. road is never maintained and in the revised layout, the width of the road in question is shown as only 25 ft. In that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot seek restoration of 60 ft. road, which is never maintained and no direction as sought for can be issued. Needless to observe that if any portion of the private land of the petitioners is required for public purpose, respondents shall not dispossess them from the said land without following due process of law. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. April 8, 2009 MRR