Telangana High Court
PIL/209/2012 of S/o Late D.Vasudeva Rao, Vs The District Collector, on 31 December 2012
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.209 OF 2012 Dt: 31-12-2012. Between: DUNDIGALLA RAGHUVEER ARYA AND OTHERS .. PETITIONERS AND THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WARANGAL DISTRICT WARANGAL AND OTHERS ..
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSEAND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.209 OF 2012
Dt: 31-12-2012.
Between:
DUNDIGALLA RAGHUVEER ARYAAND OTHERS .. PETITIONERS
AND
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,WARANGAL DISTRICTWARANGALAND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSEANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.209 OF 2012
ORDER: (Per THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)
This writ petition is filed by the writ petitioners under the Public Interestjurisdiction praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of therespondents in blocking the main road near 1000 Pillars temple,Hanamkonda by erecting permanent structures on the public road indeviation to the Master Plan, as arbitrary, irrational and illegal andconsequently to direct the respondents to remove the permanent structureson the public road which are illegally erected/constructed.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
It appears that the petitioners filed this writ petition as Public InterestLitigation to take their right of easement which type of litigation in thisjurisdiction should be nipped in the bud. Even in the affidavit, which hasbeen filed along with the writ petition, it is submitted that residents near theThousand Pillar Temple would be left with very narrow road for their ingressand egress by the impugned action of the respondents. Therefore, it cannotbe said that even their right of easement has been curtailed by therespondents in the matter in repairing the old architectural Thousand Pillartemple at the said locality.
It appears from the counter affidavit filed by the 2[nd] respondent that theexisting road has been widened to 100 feet for the convenience of the publicand pilgrims/tourists who visit the Thousand Pillars Temple. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the respondents-authorities have acquired theland in question under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act through theRevenue Divisional Officer, Warangal and completed the road widening workand other developmental works by incurring an expenditure to the tune ofRs.6.00 Crores towards acquisition of land and developmental works mainlyfor the purpose of beautification of the temple. It is further stated that theauthorities have not blocked the road, and small gates were left for theirentrance to main road by walk without vehicular flow, because there is analternate passage existing for them to enter into their houses from the mainroad. It is further stated that adjacent to the main road a CC road was laid forparking purpose and cement poles were laid after parking place forbeautification of the approach road and to erect the Temple Arch andconstructed the compound wall at the edge of both sides in order to preventany encroachment of the land acquired for the Temple purpose by any body.It is further stated that the developmental works are taken up on the approachroad besides main road only for the purpose of beautification of the Temple inthe interest of large public and Pilgrims/Tourists who visit the temple. It isfurther stated that there is an alternative passage to the petitioners in order toreach their houses or properties and as such, the acquired and developedland road is not necessary to them and that for their ingress and egress smallgates were provided to reach their houses from the main road by walkthrough the Temple approach road.
In the circumstances, it appears to us that this Public Interest Litigationhas been filed by the petitioners only to raise a question with regard to theireasement rights, if any. In our considered opinion, the question with regard totheir easement rights cannot be solved in this Public Interest Litigationpetition. In our opinion, this Public Interest Litigation is nothing but amisconceived application.
Accordingly, this Public Interest Litigation is dismissed. No costs.
Dt: 31-12-2012.
TNB
( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, HCJ )
( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J )