IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 20599 of 2001 Between: 1 L. Jaganmohan Reddy, S/o. Ella Reddy, R/o. Hyderabad. 2 R. Srinivasa Sudhish, S/o. R.N.Sastry, R/o. Road No.5, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Kapra Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Kapra, R.R. District. 2 The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Rep. by its Vice Chairman, 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 will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 1st Respondent and his subordinates not to demolish the RCC slab laid on 10' channel in Sy. Nos. 612 to 619, Kapra Village, Keesara Mandal, R.R. District and be pleased to direct the 1st Respondent to implement and follow the final layout sanctioned by the 2nd Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.R.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.B.MAHENDER REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent and his subordinates not to demolish the RCC slab over the channel in S.Nos.612 to 619 situated at Kapra Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. None appears for the petitioners. 3. Counter has been filed stating that while approving the approved layout permit dated 14.07.1997 in respect of the land covered by Sy.Nos.612 to 619 and while granting technical approval it was suggested that the petitioners shall maintain channalised stream line all along the road depending upon the natural slope of ground and to maintain the natural flow of water, so as to safeguard the roads of the colony not to damage and as the first petitioner complied with all requirements, the second respondent considered and released the final layout on 23.11.2000. Therefore, as per the final layout, it is stated that the petitioners are not entitled to make any constructions on the channalised stream and the channel is passing through the lands of the petitioner through Sy.Nos.612 to 619 but not Sy.No.620 as contended by the petitioners. 4. As the petitioners did not file any reply to the aforesaid counter, it cannot be said that the petitioners are entitled to make constructions on the road. Therefore, I do not see any merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 3, 2008 DSK