IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 5970 of 2008 Between: Chava Hanumantha Rao, S/o. Chava China Veerabhadraiah, R/o. Srinilayam, Plot No. 243/A, MLA Colony, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secrretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3 The Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, GHMC Building, West Marredpally, Secundderabad. 4 The Executive Engineer, Roads & Building, Vikarabad Division, Ranga Reddy District. 5 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division at Attapur, Hyderabad. 6 The Tahsildar, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 7 The Station House Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District. 8 The Executie Officer, Chevella Grampanchyat, Chevella Village and Mandal, Ranga REddy District. 9 P. Mahender Reddy, S/o.Not Known, Chevella Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 10 G. Narasimha Reddy, 'S/o. Venkat Reddy, Near Sub Registrar Chevella Office, Chevella Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 11 Mangali Balraj, S/o.Not Known to the Petitioner Z.P.T.C. Member, Chevella Village & Mandal, Ranga Reddy 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 a Writ or directin more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the any action of the Tahsildar Chevella or any officer or Officers of the State in resorting to fencing of the old existing 33 feet road which was merged in State High Way No. 23 and the obstruction of the usage of the orad by the Petitioner and the public at large is illegal, arbitrary, high handed and malafide and declaration that existing 33 feet road which is the ingress and egrees and to the public at Large can't permitted to be obstructed by the respondents and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 5970 of 2008 24-04-2009 Oral Order: The writ petition is filed alleging that the 6th respondent is resorting to fencing and thus blocking the existing 33’ road which was merged with the State High Way No.23, obstructing the usage of the road by the petitioner and the public for ingress and egress therethrough; and insofar as the petitioner is concerned for ingress and egress to the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited outlet in survey No. 91 and 88 Part, Chevella village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Notice before admission was ordered on 19-03-2008. On 02-04-2008, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue reported on instructions from the 6th respondent that the respondents are not going to close the road in question. Notices in this writ petition have been served on the respondents. There is however no response from the unofficial respondents nor any counter affidavit on behalf of the official respondents, except the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has merely stated in the counter that pursuant to the no objection certificate issued by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 29-01-2008, the answering respondent had issued technical approval for construction of the petrol pump vide letter dated 05-03-2008; sent it to the Chevalla Gram Panchayat and that this respondent is not concerned with the other allegations in the writ petition. Today when the matter is again taken up for admission hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions from the 6th respondent submits that neither the 6th respondent nor the other official respondent Nos. 1,2, and 5 have interfered nor would interfere with the petitioner’s right of ingress and egress and that if the State have any objections to the petitioner’s use of the path in question, the concerned department or officer of the State would only take action after passing an appropriate order and communicating the same to the petitioner and without any formal order, the learned Government Pleader submits none of the official respondents would interfere with the petitioner’s user and enjoyment of the road. In the light of the circumstances stated above including the statement made on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1,2, 5 and 6 by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent and in the context of no pleading in opposition by the other respondents, the substantive grievance of the petitioner as presented in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. The writ petition is disposed of recording the above submission made by the learned Government Pleader. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 24-04-2009 Pvks