IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4493 of 2009 Between: 1. Smt.Y.Amrutha Bai w/o Late Y.Balaiah, aged 71 years, Occ: Household, R/o 5-9-54/71 to 75, Phoolbagh, Bahseerbagh, Hyderabad. 2. Sri Y.Sudharshan Rao, S/o late Y.Balaiah aged 59 years, Occ: Business, R/o 5-9-54/71 to 75, Phoolbagh, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. The Commissioner of Greater Hyderabad, Municipal Corporation, Hyderbad. 2. Chief Engineer Greater Hyderabad, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to demolish / destroy the existing cement road from the main road (Basheerbagh cross roads, to the control room) house of the petitioners as arbitrary, illegal, violative of article 14, 21 and 300A, of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.4493 of 2009 Order: Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in trying to demolish the existing cement road laid from Basheerbagh X Roads to the house of the petitioners, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioners claim that they are in possession of an extent 2064 sq.yards of land in Survey Nos.93/1, 93/2 and 94 part T.S.No.1/1 Block ‘H’, Ward No.53, Nampally Village and Mandal. On the allegation that the petitioners had grabbed the said land, the Mandal Revenue Officer filed L.G.C.No.62 of 1998 against the petitioner. The same was allowed and while allowing the same in favour of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the Land Grabbing Court gave liberty to the petitioners to seek regularization of the land. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed W.P.No.3320 of 2006 before this Court and the same is pending. Now, when the respondents were taking steps to remove the cement road laid from the main road to their house, they filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for the respondents. Admittedly, the ownership of the land in question, which the petitioners claim to be in their possession, is in dispute. The Land Grabbing Court though is said to have held them land grabbers, granted them liberty to seek regularization. Admittedly, the petitioners did not seek regularization, and in fact, questioning the order of the Land Grabbing Court, they filed a writ petition and the same is pending before this Court. The road which the respondents are seeking to remove was not laid by the petitioners and in fact, the same was laid by the respondents, which they are entitled to. If the petitioners claim that they have any right over the property or the road, they are at liberty to seek appropriate relief in the writ petition that is pending. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 05.03.2009 VGB