THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.14557 of 2009 Oral order: The petitioner claims that he purchased a old house in an extent of 266 2/3 sq.yds. bearing D.No.49-58-1, Green Park Colony, Near Port Stadium, Visakhapatnam, under registered sale deed, dated 29.03.1995. Thereafter, he obtained building construction permission vide permission dated 14.05.2004 and constructed three floors. The petitioner states that the house is situated in a corner and that on the eastern side of the building, there exists a 30’ wide road and on the southern side, there exists a 40’ wide road, on which side, he constructed commercial shops in all the three floors, and that he is paying tax in respect of the building for commercial category. The petitioner states that the 40’ wide road on the southern side of his building is a service road as per the master plan of Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, and since this road comes under the control of the respondent, namely, the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, they are duty bound to maintain it by laying black top road. That instead of laying the road, the respondent is taking steps to construct compound wall around the service road so as to construct a Yoga Centre, and if it is allowed to construct, then it will block the access to the shops of the petitioner constructed by him on the southern side of his building. Hence, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent not to close the 40’ wide road on the southern side of his building by constructing a compound wall upto a length of 70’ for the purpose of Yoga Centre. On 21.07.2009, when the matter came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent took notice and sought time to get instructions, and in the meantime, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo, which was extended from time to time. The respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner was granted permission for construction of residential building consisting of ground plus two floors, but in deviation of the permission granted, the petitioner unauthorisedly constructed an additional floor and converted the usage of the building from residential to commercial. It is stated that mere assessment of the property to tax, will not confer any right to the petitioner to proceed with the unauthorized development. It is submitted that the respondent approved plan in the year 2004 providing access to the petitioner towards the eastern side facing the 30’ wide road and no access has been provided to the petitioner towards the southern side of his building. It is submitted that as per the approved plan layout, the southern side boundary of the building of the petitioner, is shown as Plot No.HIG 30, and to demonstrate that there exists Plot No.HIG 30 towards the southern boundary of the petitioner’s building, he produced the approved layout plan. It is further submitted that locals of the area, are conducting yoga classes in Plot No.HIG 30, which is vacant. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent is blocking the ingress and egress to the building of the petitioner, is denied. Thus, the respondent prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the approved layout plan. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent is blocking the 40’ wide road on the southern side of his building cannot be accepted, for it is the specific case of the respondent that there does not exist any 40’ wide road on the southern side of the building. That the land abutting the southern side boundary of the building of the petitioner, is carved as Plot No.30. The fact that the land abutting the building of the petitioner on the southern side is Plot No.30 becomes very clear from a perusal of the approved layout, which the respondent filed along with the counter. Apart from that, it is the case of the respondent that as per the building plan approved by them, the building of the petitioner has been provided access on the eastern side facing the 30’ wide road and not towards the southern side, and the petitioner in contravention of the approved plan, constructed one additional floor and converted the use of the building from residential to commercial. That since Plot No.30 is vacant, the locals are making use of the same, for practicing yoga and greenery. Since the place around which the respondent is alleged to be constructing a compound wall, for the purpose of Yoga Centre, is not 40’ wide road, and is shown as Plot No.30, the petitioner has no right whatsoever to question the action of the respondent in constructing a compound wall around the said plot for the purpose of constructing Yoga Centre. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:02.11.2009 VGB/KSR