IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17129 of 2008 Between: Juluri Nagaiah @ G.Nagaiah, S/o Late Sri Juluri Thimmaiah, R/o. Plot No, 50 & 51, Sneha Sadan Apartment, Flat No.301, Bhagyanagar Colony, Kukatpally,Hyderabad-500 072. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner, Sadashivpet, District Medak, 2 The Municipal Commissioner, Municipality,Sadashiv pet, District Medak, 3 Akula Siva Kumar @ Sivudu, S/o. late Sri Akula Veersetty, R/o. H.No.2-6-83, Near Sangameswara Mandir, Subhash Road, Sadasivapeta(PO), Medak District. .....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 appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction ofthe Respondents No.1 and No.2 in not dismantling the RCC roof laid in to the Lane/common Passage and removal of wooden Cabin/Dabba installed in the 10 feet lane in between the premises No.2-6-84 & 2-6-85 and the 3rd Respondents property situated at Subhash Rod, Near Sangameswara Mandir, Sadasivapeta, Medak District as illegal, arbitrary and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequentially direct the Respondents to remove the said illegal structures by way of demolition to enable free passage, peaceful enjoyment of the premises and environment by the Petitioner and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKAT REDDY DONTHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 17129 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by Juluri Nagaiah @ G.Nagaiah with a prayer to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents No.1 and 2 on the respresentation seeking dismantling RCC roof laid on to the lane/common passage and removal of wooden Cabin/Dabba installed in the 10 feet lane in between the house of the petitioner and the house of Akula Siva Kumar @ Sivudu-3rd respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the premises bearing No. 2-6-84 and 2-6-85, situated at Subhas Road, near Sangameswara Mandir, Sadasivapeta, Medak District. 3rd Respondent owns a premises bearing No. 2-6-86, which is adjacent to the premises of the petitioner and there is 10 feet lane between two premises. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that 3rd respondent is encroached upon the 10 feet lane and made certain constructions and thereby his right to passage is aﬀected. For better appreciation I may refer para 4 and 5 of the writ aﬃdavit filed in support of the petition and they are: “4. The respondent NO.3 is the neighbour to my above said premises. The Respondent NO.3 has recently started construction over his property, which is opposite to my Premises H.No. 2-6-85. The Respondent NO.3 and I being the neighbours have been using the schedule property as common passage to enter our respective premises for time immemorial. I humbly submit that the Respondent NO.3 has erected a temporary wooden cabin (Dabba) at the entrance of the schedule property, which is towards main road leading to NH-9 causing inconvenience to enter in the said lane. Immediately I have opposed the same and to relieve inconvenience, the Respondent NO.3 has promised to removal the said temporary structure. However, the Respondent nO.3 has not kept his promise. 5. I humbly submit that on 29-6-2008, I have received a telephonic information from my tenant Sri Abdul Aleem that the Respondent No.3 has illegally laid RCC roof covering about 5 feet of common passage i.e. schedule property thereby and has committed trespass of about 5 feet out of schedule property. The illegal act of the respondent NO.3 would create even encroachment on ground also, which would cause diﬃculties to the passage to my premises. Knowing the same, I have immediately rushed to the spot and requested the Respondent No.3 to removal the illegal construction of roof laid covering about 5 feet of common passage. However, the Respondent No.3 instead of removing the said illegal construction has rudely replied that it is none of my business. The respondent No.3 even has not hesitated to threaten my tenants and myself with dire consequences if we questioned his illegal activities. It seems that the Respondent No.3 without having any approved sanctioned plan from the concerned authorities has been making construction”. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission learned standing counsel appearing for Sadashivpet received notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted a representation to the 1st respondent with regard to the constructions made by the 3rd respondent on the lane. There being no action by the respondents, the petitioner chooses to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The averments of the aﬃdavit are explicit that the dispute in between the petitioner and third respondent is in respect of a lane. His grievance is that the constructions made by the 3rd respondent in the lane blocked his right of passage over it. Virtually, the petitioner claims easementary rights over the lane and because of some constructions allegedly made by the 3rd respondent, his easementary rights are aﬀected. There is no public law element involved in this writ petition. It is purely a private dispute between the petitioner and third respondent. The petitioner is at liberty to approach Civil Court in case his easementary rights over the lane are infringed. 8. Reserving the said liberty to the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 7th August, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 17129 OF 2008 7th August, 2008.