IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 12788 of 2007 Between: Alla Nani Colony Development Society, A Regd. Society bearing No. 6/2005, Eluru rep by its Secretary sri Balla Surya Nageswara rao S/o Sri Chinna Rao, R/o 16-A-1-120/6, Alla Nani Colony, Eluru, West Godavari district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipal Corporation of Eluru, rep by its Commissioner, Eluru, West Godavari District 2 The District collector, West Godavari District, Eluru. .....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 issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ ofMandamus declaringthe action of therespondents in not taking steps to restrain any body to use the land admeasuring ac. 2.25 cents in T.s. No. 54 and 44/2 of Tangellamudi, Eluru, West Godavari District as burial ground by considering the representation dt 18-5-2007 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and issue direction to the respondents not to allow any body to use the said place as burial ground and not to register the same as such and to pass such other order or orders as this hon'ble Court may deem fitand proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) In this public interest litigation, a grievance has been made by the petitioner to the effect that the land bearing T.S.No. 54 and 44/2 of Tangellamudi, Eluru, West Godavari District is likely to be used as burial ground. It has been submitted that the said land is near to the residential area and, therefore, it should not be put to use as a burial ground. Sri S.Nageshwar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation has submitted that the land in question has never been used as a burial ground. It has been submitted that before any land is put to use as a burial ground, permission is required to be obtained from the concerned Municipal Corporation. It has also been submitted that so far no permission has been granted by respondent No.1 to use the land in question as a burial ground and, therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that the land might be used as a burial ground is not well founded. In view of the fact that respondent No.1-Corporation has not granted necessary permission to use the land in question as a burial ground, in our opinion, the apprehension of the petitioner is not well founded and, therefore, the petition is rejected. The petition stands disposed of as rejected with no order as to costs. ____________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 30th January, 2009. GRR