Telangana High Court
WP/26724/2007 of V. Shiv Shanker Vs The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater on 29 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26724 of 2007 Between: V. Shiv
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTPRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICEand THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 26724 of 2007
Between:
V. Shiv Shanker S/o. Late Dr. V. Subba Rao R/o. H.No. 1-11-240/6, Shamlal Area, Begumpet, Hyderabad.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad MunicipalCorporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.
2 The Managing Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply &
Sewerage Board, Maithri Vihar Complex,
Maithri Vanam, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
3 The Managing Director, M/s. G.R. Thanga Maligai Pvt. Ltd., H.No. 136, (Old No. 104) Osman Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to to issue a writ of Mandamus order or direction directing: 1) the1st respondent to implement the layout sanctioned in proceedings No.254/E dt. 27-6-1960 by connecting to the Gurumurthy lane with puccaroad within a given time as may be stipulated by this Hon'ble High Court;and 2) the 2nd respondent to restore the broken and damaged sewerlines and clear the open space from the sewer water collected by leakageof the sewer lines and bring the culprits to book for damaging the publicproperty and creating public nuisance and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:PARTY-IN-PERSON
Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SCFOR MCH 1,2,4&6
The Court made the following :
ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ)
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.
1. This is a public interest litigation wherein the petitioner hasapproached this Court for a direction as under:
“1. the 1[st] respondent to implement the layoutsanctioned in proceedings No. 254/E, dated 27-6-1960 byconnecting to the Gurumurthy lane with pucca road within agiven time as may be stipulated by this Hon’ble High Court;and
2. the 2[nd] respondent to restore the broken anddamaged sewer lines and clear the open space from thesewer water collected by leakage of the sewer lines andbring the culprits to book for damaging the public propertyand creating public nuisance and pass such other order ororders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in theinterest of justice.”
2. In a nutshell, he wants a road connecting his land and the mainroad through his neighbour’s land, which is on the eastern side of hisland. His case is that he has no approach road to go to the main roadfrom his land.
3. In our opinion, this cannot be treated as a public interest litigationfor the reason that he wants to assert his right to pass throughsomebody’s land.
4. Apart from that, in pursuance of the notice issued by this Court,learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 has placed on record asketch approved by the City Planner, North Zone, Greater HyderabadMunicipal Corporation showing that the petitioner is having an access onthe Western side of his land which connects the main road and, therefore,it cannot be said that the petitioner is not having any way/road or passageconnecting his land to the main road.
5. Respondent No.3, a private limited company, owns a plot of land,which is on the eastern side of the land belonging to the petitioner. It hasbeen submitted by learned Advocate, Sri M.S. RamchandraRao appearing for respondent No.3, that respondent No.3 desires to usethe entire plot as a piece of land and it does not want any layout to besanctioned in respect of its plot at present.
6. Be that as it may, in our opinion, this is not a bona fide publicinterest litigation and as the petitioner is having an approach roadconnecting his land and the main road, we do not see any reason toentertain this petition.
7. The petition stands rejected with no order as to costs.
_____________________
ANIL R. DAVE, CJ
__________________________
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J