IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26724 of 2007 Between: V. Shiv Shanker S/o. Late Dr. V. Subba Rao R/o. H.No. 1-11-240/6, Shamlal Area, Begumpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Managing Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Maithri Vihar Complex, Maithri Vanam, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 3 The Managing Director, M/s. G.R. Thanga Maligai Pvt. Ltd., H.No. 136, (Old No. 104) Osman Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ of Mandamus order or direction directing: 1) the 1st respondent to implement the layout sanctioned in proceedings No. 254/E dt. 27-6-1960 by connecting to the Gurumurthy lane with pucca road within a given time as may be stipulated by this Hon'ble High Court; and 2) the 2nd respondent to restore the broken and damaged sewer lines and clear the open space from the sewer water collected by leakage of the sewer lines and bring the culprits to book for damaging the public property and creating public nuisance and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) 1. This is a public interest litigation wherein the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction as under: “1. the 1st respondent to implement the layout sanctioned in proceedings No. 254/E, dated 27-6-1960 by connecting to the Gurumurthy lane with pucca road within a given time as may be stipulated by this Hon’ble High Court; and 2. the 2nd respondent to restore the broken and damaged sewer lines and clear the open space from the sewer water collected by leakage of the sewer lines and bring the culprits to book for damaging the public property and creating public nuisance and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. In a nutshell, he wants a road connecting his land and the main road through his neighbour’s land, which is on the eastern side of his land. His case is that he has no approach road to go to the main road from his land. 3. In our opinion, this cannot be treated as a public interest litigation for the reason that he wants to assert his right to pass through somebody’s land. 4. Apart from that, in pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 has placed on record a sketch approved by the City Planner, North Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation showing that the petitioner is having an access on the Western side of his land which connects the main road and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not having any way/road or passage connecting his land to the main road. 5. Respondent No.3, a private limited company, owns a plot of land, which is on the eastern side of the land belonging to the petitioner. It has been submitted by learned Advocate, Sri M.S. Ramchandra Rao appearing for respondent No.3, that respondent No.3 desires to use the entire plot as a piece of land and it does not want any layout to be sanctioned in respect of its plot at present. 6. Be that as it may, in our opinion, this is not a bona fide public interest litigation and as the petitioner is having an approach road connecting his land and the main road, we do not see any reason to entertain this petition. 7. The petition stands rejected with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th December, 2008. GRR/ARS