IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4855 of 2008 Between: 1. Akoju Jagannadha Chary, S/o. Raja Veeraiah, R/o. H.No.11-15-32/62, Bhagath Singh Nagar Basti, Ward No. 11, Warangal; 2. Jangam Prabhakar, s/o. Sarvaiah, R/o. H.No. 11-15-32/69, Bhagath Singh Nagar Basti, Ward No. 11, Warangal; 3. Md. Gouse, S/o. Yakub, R/o. H.No. 11-15-32/17, Bhagath Singh Nagar Basti, Ward No. 11, Warangal; 4. Shaik Meera, s/o. Abdul Ghani, R/o. H.No. 11-15-32/94, BhagathSingh Nagar Basti, Ward No. 11, Warangal; 5. Erra Elia, s/o. Kanakaiah, R/o. Bhagath Singh Nagar Basti, Ward No. 11, Warangal; ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. The Government of A.P. Rep by its Principle Secretary (ULC), Urban Land Ceiling, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Municipal Corporation of Warangal, Rep by its Commissioner, Warangal. 3. Sri N. Pitchi Reddy, S/o. Sammaiah, R/o. H.No. 11-25-4G, Vasavi Colony, Warangal. 4. The Regional Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Hyderabad. .....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 any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring action of the 2nd respondent in allowing the 3rd respondent to construct the petrol bunk by closing the existing approved three lanes in situated in Sy.No. 92 of Lamipur, Warangal, by closing the access to the petitioners to the main road as illegal, arbitrary, intentional, mala fide and without any authority and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action against the 3rd respondent in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.V.BHANU PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR CEILING Counsel for the Respondent No.2:MR.V.DURGANAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. T.S.ANAND Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR. O.MANOHAR REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are five in number, with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction, preferably a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Municipal Corporation of Warangal-2nd respondent in allowing N.Pitchi Reddy-3rd respondent to construct petrol bunk by closing the existing three lanes in Sy.No.92 of Laxmipur, Warangal, which provide access to the petitioners to the main road, as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and without any authority. 2 . 2nd petitioner sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is averred in the writ affidavit that the petitioners along with some others occupied 3996 sq. meters of land in S.No.92 of Laxmipur and thereafter made an application for allotment of site in their occupation. The Special Officer sent proposals for allotment of sites to the petitioners. There are three internal lanes giving access to the main road from the site in their occupation. Whileso, the 3rd respondent, who is neighbour to the land in their occupation, obtained permission for construction of petrol bunk and proceeding with constructions by closing the three internal lanes. Hence, the writ petition with the relief stated supra. 3. Respondents 2 and 3 filed counter affidavits. It is stated in the counter affidavit of 2nd respondent that the petitioners occupied the land in S.No.92 unauthorisedly and there are no three internal lanes giving access to the 100 feet main road. The third respondent obtained permission and constructed a compound wall. 4. The counter affidavit of the third respondent, in brief, is:- He purchased land admeasuring 678.44 sq. yards situated in S.Nos.91 and 92 on the road leading to Narsampet under a registered sale deed. No internal lanes exist in the land purchased by him. Some unauthorized persons occupied a vast extent of land, which is behind his land and resorted to litigate to have wrongful gain. Some of them filed suits being O.S.Nos.23 and 20 of 1984 and ultimately ended up in compromise. One Smt. K.Kamala and others filed O.S.No.1049 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal and also moved I.A.No.1425 of 2006 seeking temporary injunction and failed to get any interim relief. Existence of three internal lanes is specifically denied. Paras.13 and 14 of the counter-affidavit are need to be noted and they are thus: “13. I respectfully submit that the averments in para.5 of the counter affidavit are contradictory, untrue and untenable. As already stated supra there are no lanes existing which will be closed because of a proposed construction of petrol bunk by me. In fact it is pertinent to note that I have made an application for construction of a building in the subject matter property on 22.04.2004 vide BA No.22/04-05. The Municipal Corporation of Warangal vide proceedings ROP No.G2/10715/2004, dated 15.7.2004 vide permission No.102 accorded permission to me for construction of the building. Even at that point of time there were no lanes existing. 14. I further respectfully submit that the averments in para. 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition are wholly incorrect and are without any regard for truth. I also respectfully submit that on institution of the suit against me I sought for a certified copy of the master plan for Warangal City as to its proposed land use and the same was issued to me under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the District Planning Officer, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal and even the said latest plan does not disclose existence of any lanes as alleged. In the light of the said latest plan it is wholly incorrect to assert as to the existence of the lanes. It is only incorrect to state that I am hand in glove with the 2nd respondent. All other allegations in the said paragraph are wholly misconceived and are without any basis.” 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent; learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent; learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners along with some others occupied an extent of 3966 sq. meters of land in Sy.No.92 of Laxmipur, Warangal, which is declared as excess land under Urban Land Ceiling Act, and put up constructions. They have access to the main road through the three internal lanes, which pass through the adjacent lands. It is further contended that the petrol bunk proposed to be set up by the 3rd respondent blocks all the three lanes and thereby the petitioners lose the ingress and aggress from the main road to the plots in their occupation. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that there is no allotment of plots to the petitioners and there is also no lay out plan with regard to the site allegedly in occupation of the petitioners and some others and therefore, they cannot seek any relief by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the third respondent is a bona fide purchaser under a registered sale deed. A further submission has been made that some of the persons claiming to be the residents of the site, which is adjacent to the site purchased by the third respondent, approached the civil Court and failed to secure any interim orders. A further submission has been made that the petitioners have been set up by the plaintiffs in the said suit, since they failed to secure interim reliefs in their favour. 9. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated in the affidavit that there are three lanes from the site in occupation of the petitioners to the main road. Indisputably there is no lay out plan for the site allegedly in occupation of the petitioners. The factual aspect of existence of those three lanes through the land purchased by the third respondent is in serious dispute. There is no material as such is placed by the petitioners on record to show that there are three lanes passing through the site purchased by the third respondent. Such is the situation, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:10th June, 2008. cs ..... ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary (ULC), Government of A.P., Urban Land Ceiling, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Warangal 3. 2 CCs to the Government Pleader for Ceiling, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT). 4. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}