IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 941 of 2003 BETWEEN: 1 Ch. Pardhasaradhy S/o. Rama Rao, R/o. Vinayaka Plots, Sriramachandranagar, Vijayawada-8 2 R.V. Ramana Rao S/o. R.V. Subrahmanyam R/o. Sriramachandranagar, Vijayawada 3 P. Seetharamaiah S/o. Madhava Rao R/o. Sriramachandranagar, Vijayawada 4 T. Vasantha Rao S/o. Krishna Rao R/o. Sriramachandranagar, Vijayawada 5 P. Koteswara Rao S/o. Lakshmaiah R/o. Sriramachandranagar, Vijayawada 6 Velagapudi Kasturi W/o. Damodar Rao R/o. Sriramachandranagar, Vijayawada 7 V. Prameela W/o. Raghava Rao R/o. Sriramachandranagar, Vijayawada 8 A. Prasad S/o. China Veera Raghava Rao R/o. Sriramachandranagar, Vijayawada ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Circle Inspector of Police VIII - Town Police Station Vijayawada. 2 The Sub-Inspector of Police VIII - Town Police Station Vijayawada. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Vijayawada Urban Vijayawada. 4 Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner Vijayawada. 5 Smt. Maganti Rajyalakshmi W/o. Ramalingeswara Rao R/o. Sri Ramachandranagar, Opp: Medical College, Gunadala, Vijayawada-520 005. ...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 a Writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the inaction on the part of the respondent No. 4 as illegal and ultra vires to the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; Consequently direct the respondents not to meddle with the Municipal Road leading from Sriramachandranagar Colony, 36th Division of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation to the National Highway No.5 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.S.R.ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR. T.S. VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.5: MR. K. RAM MOHAN CHOWDARY The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners submit that they are the residents of Sriramachandranagar of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation situated in the 36th division and the said colony is close to the National Highway No.5 (NH-5). The fourth respondent municipal corporation developed the road for the purpose of ingress and egress from their colony to NH-5 and as that being the only road available to the residents of the colony they are using the same for ingress and egress since 1980 and nobody raised any objection either at the time of laying the road by the then Gram Panchayat or subsequently at the time of the development of the road by the corporation. 2. Petitioners further submit that, while so, one Sri Bandi Appa Rao raised an objection contending that the road falls within his property situated in Sy.No.362/202 and put up a pole in the midst of the road objecting free flow of traffic and since the said pole has created traffic problem causing inconvenience to the residents of the colony for their ingress and egress they have made a representation to the corporation to remove the pole. As the respondent corporation failed to take any action, the petitioners filed WP.No.8368 of 2002 seeking Writ of Mandamus to direct the Municipal Corporation to remove the obstruction made by Sri Bandi Appa Rao by putting the cement pillar in the middle of the municipal road and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 26.04.2002 at the admission stage directing the municipal corporation to remove the obstruction put in the middle of the road. Aggrieved by the said order, the said Bandi Appa Rao filed W.A.No.1725 of 2002 and the Division Bench of this Court while admitting the appeal granted interim order in WAMP.No.3255 of 2002 on 02.12.2002 directing the municipal corporation to restore the pillar in its original position and also permitted the residents of the locality to use the pathway. It was further directed that the parties may pursue their remedy by negotiation as provided under the provisions of the Section 146 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the said Bandi Appa Rao has not accepted to surrender his land by way of negotiations, the Corporation has initiated the proceedings for acquisition of the land and the land acquisitions proceedings are in process. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent – corporation submits that the road was already made but the owner of the said land obstructed the pathway by erecting a pole and the said obstruction was removed but as per the orders of this Court the pole was again restored. 5. Admittedly, the writ appeal is pending on the file of this Court. Thus, I am of the opinion that as long as the controversy is not resolved in the pending writ appeal and the land is not acquired making a free way to the petitioners, the relief claimed in this writ petition to direct the authorities to remove the obstruction made by the fifth respondent cannot be considered. It is stated that the fifth respondent is one of the owners similar to that of the said Bandi Appa Rao and that she filed a complaint against the petitioners for interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment and in fact, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioners in Cr.No.578 of 2002. Therefore, I am of the opinion that though the petitioners have approached this Court by way of WP.No.8368 of 2002, which was disposed of, but the writ appeal in WA.No.1725 of 2002 is still pending before this Court. Until the writ appeal is disposed of or the land is acquired by the municipal corporation, the petitioners are not entitled to any relied in this writ petition. However, there cannot be any justification on the part of the municipal corporation in not acquiring the land by invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the fourth respondent – municipal corporation is directed to expedite the acquisition of the said land, for making the road freely accessible to the residents of the colony, without any undue delay. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 2, 2008 DSK