IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24707 of 2000 Between: 1 Parents’ Committee of Pallavi Model School, Rep. by its President, Sri Shaik Shamshuddin, S/o. Shaik Nawab, R/o.65, A.W.H.O. (A), Secunderabad. 2 Sri Khalid Osman S/o.Mohd.Osman, R/o.1, Rab Mansion, Nallagutta, Secunderabad. Secretary, Parents Committee of Pallavi Model School ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its District Collector, Hyderabad District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Thrimulghery, Secunderabad, Hyderabad - 500 009. 3 The Contoment Board, Secunderabad, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Secunderabad. 4 Pallavi Educational Society, Thokatta, Thrimulghery Mandal, Hyderabad District. Rep. by its Secretary, M.Komuraiah, S/o.Venkataiah R/o.Thokatta Village, Thirumulghery Mandal, Secunderabad. .....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 an order, direction or Writ, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in putting the gate and constructing the wall across the 30 feet wide road passing through Sy.No.157/11 (157/1) situated at Thokatta (Village), Revenue Mandal Thrimughery, Hyderabad District from North to South provide for the ingress to the School of 4th Respondent as arbitrary, bad, illegal and violatiove of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to restore the 30 feet wide road, and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as his Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.C.RAMESH SAGAR (Not present) Counsel for the Respondents: 1. AGP FOR REVENUE FOR R1 & R2 2. SRI G.V.KOTESWARA RAO FOR SRI Y.V.RAVI PRASAD FOR R3. 3. NONE APPEARED FOR R4. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24707 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in putting the gate and constructing the wall across the 30 feet wide road passing through Sy.No.157/11 (157/1) situated at Thokatta village, Thrimulghery Revenue Mandal, Hyderabad District, from North to South provided for ingress and eggress to the school of 4th respondent as arbitrary, bad, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. 3. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 and 2, Sri G.V.Koteshwar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3, and no one appeared for respondent No.4. 4. Petitioner No.1, which claims to be the Parents’ Committee of the students of the School run by respondent No.4, and petitioner no.2, who is a parent, claim that respondent No.4 purchased an extent of 543.75 sq.yards in Sy.No.157/1 of Thokatta village, Thrimulghery Mandal, under registered sale deed, dated 06.08.1994, and, similarly, it purchased another extent of 500 sq. yards in Sy.No.157/1 and the total extent of land in its possession is 1,045 sq. yards. They referred to various permissions granted to the School run by respondent No.4 in their aﬃdavit and further submitted that the main road Boinpally to Thrimulghery is on Northern direction of the School and a 30 feet wide road is situated on Southern side, which is partly passing through a portion of the Government land adjoining Hasmathpet road. They further stated that one C.Bal Reddy, s/o.Ramchandra Reddy has constructed a residential building to the North of the play ground of the School run by respondent No.4 and the staﬀ and students of the School have been using the said 30 feet wide road, since the time of establishment of the School in the year 1994. The petitioners referred to the civil suit O.S.No.102 of 1999 on the ﬁle of I- Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, ﬁled by the said Sri C.Bal Reddy against respondent No.2 restraining him from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of 690 sq. yards of land in Sy.No.157/11 (157/1) and that in spite of the said orders, respondent No.2 constructed wall across the 30 feet road by blocking the way to the School. Therefore, the present writ petition is ﬁled to direct respondent No.2 to remove the said compound wall and gate. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that there is only one road available for School authorities, which is 30 feet wide, and located at the Southern side of the School and there was no road on the Northern side as mentioned by the petitioner. He further stated that there is a big open Government land available on the Northern side of the School, out of which an extent of 3800 sq. yards was handed over to the Telephone department and an extent of 1,000 sq. yards was allotted to the International sports persons and remaining portion is covered by Mandal Oﬃce building, that in respect of the adjacent open land of 690 sq. yards out of the compound wall of Mandal Oﬃce building, Sri Bal Reddy ﬁled O.S.No.102 of 1999 for injunction and that the open land covered by O.S.No.102 of 1999 is not part of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃce building and it is situated outside the compound wall. He further stated that before construction of the Mandal Oﬃce building and the allotment of land to the Telephone department and International Sports persons, the land was open and some of the students used to use the said land to reach the School, and after construction of the Mandal Oﬃce and compound wall of Telephone department and International Sports Persons, the school authorities and students started using 30 feet road existing on the Southern side and that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer’s oﬃce was constructed in the year 1998 and in order to protect the property, the compound wall was raised. 6. No reply aﬃdavit is ﬁled controverting these allegations containing in the counter affidavit. 7. It is not the case of the petitioner that the road is sanctioned in the Master plan. If the students of the School run by respondent No.4 were using the open place belonging to the Government, they cannot claim any prescriptive right to continue to use such land. Unless the petitioners are able to plead and establish that the road is sanctioned in the Master plan, they have no legally enforceable right to prevent respondent No.2 from constructing a compound wall in order to protect the land, which admittedly belongs to the Government. 8. In this view of the matter, the petitioners failed to establish any right for granting the relief claimed in the writ petition. 9. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 01.08.2008 v v