Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
S.V. BHATT, J.
Anand Bala & Another – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Rep. by its Military Estates Officer A.P. Circle, Secunderabad & Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 26484 of 2011
Decided On : 14-09-2016
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 19 (1) (d) and 21 – Cantonments Act, 2006 – Section 360 – Easementary right – Jurisdiction – Prayed for declaring action of respondents in closing down the Lake Lines Road-LLR a public thoroughfare as illegal, without jurisdiction – Seeks for enforcement of their alleged right of ingress and egress through LLR – The petitioners, on the one hand, rest claim on alleged easementary right, easement of necessity and on other LLR as a public thoroughfare, forming part of Cantonment Area – Respondents stoutly deny existence of any right in petitioners and justify closure of LLR for safety and security of vital installations, including defence areas in changed scenario – Respondents firstly deny existence of easementary right of the petitioners, and secondly claim that LLR is a road passing through Class A land under exclusive administrative control of defence administration – Prayer against a road passing through Class A land is unsustainable – In this backdrop, the petitioners, through their affidavits, reply affidavit and annexures, attempt to establish the existence of LLR as a thoroughfare and is not passing through Class A land – Respondents in reply filed counter and additional counter affidavits – Whether Lake Lines Area and LLR satisfy the requirement of Class A (1) land or not – Held, Court is compelled to observe that by nature of its duty and purpose, defence facilities are established, administered and operated at vantage secluded areas by the Governments – Such matters are not justiciable, more particularly having perused the sealed cover produced by 1st respondent – This Court is not inclined to sit in judgment under the power of judicial review on safety and security concerns expressed by respondents and examine the issue further – Respondents have established that LLR is passing through facilities attracting Class A (1) land description and legally administration is with Military Estates Officer and no exception can be taken – Point is answered against petitioners and in favour of respondents – Therefore, it is necessary to direct the Chief Secretary, State of Telangana to issue necessary directions to HMDA and other local bodies where barracks are established or the area is under defence control; to specially restrict access through private approved layout; not to approve a layout filed with roads passing through defence land and illustrate prohibited areas in neighbouring land – 1st respondent is given liberty to communicate this order to the Chief Secretary, State of Telangana and other local bodies for compliance – Petition is dismissed.(Paras 59, 60 and 61)
1. Heard Mr.D.V. Seetharammurthy, learned senior counsel for petitioners, Ms.S.Siva Kumari, learned counsel for respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Mr. Deepak Bhattacharjee for respondent No.2.
2. The petitioners pray for Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in closing down the Lake Lines Road (for short LLR) (a public thoroughfare) in Bolarum, Secunderabad, as illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (d) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct respondents to reopen the LLR.
3. The petitioners through the instant writ petition seek for enforcement of their alleged right of ingress and egress through LLR. The petitioners, on the one hand, rest the claim on the alleged easementary right, easement of necessity and on the other LLR as a public thoroughfare, forming part of Cantonment Area.
4. Per contra, the respondents stoutly deny existence of any right in petitioners and justify closure of LLR for safety and security of vital installations, including defence areas in the changed scenario. The respondents firstly deny the existence of the easementary right of the petitioners, and secondly claim that LLR is a road passing through Class A land under exclusive administrative control of defence administration. Therefore, the writ prayer against a road passing through Class A land is unsustainable.
5. In this backdrop, the petitioners, through their affidavits, reply affidavit and annexures, attempt to establish the existence of LLR as a thoroughfare and is not passing through Class A land. The respondents in reply filed counter and additional counter affidavits.
6. The counsel appearing for the parties admit that the closure of 9 roads as picturesquely explained in Ex.P.1 was the subject matter of decision in MANI ENCLAVE RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIA (2015 (1) ALT 91). The LLR, a road passing through Bison division and Bolarum Golf Course, is closed by the respondents. The entirety of pleadings and material convert the instant writ petition into an original suit for enforcement of easementary or public road right. This Court examines the right enforced by the petitioners strictly within the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Averments in writ affidavit:
7. The petitioners claim ownership and possession to an extent of 5-86 acres in Sy.No.219 of Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. This Court in this writ petition is not examining the alleged exclusive right of petitioners to the land in Sy.No.219 and shall not be understood as expressing any view thereon. The right of ingress and egress claimed by petitioners is examined from google maps etc., placed by petitioners.
8. The petitioners claim to have purchased the said extent of 5-86 acres through sale deeds dated 13.10.1994, 17.10.1994, 20.02.1995, 23.02.1995 and 25.02.1995 and refer to the judgment and decree in O.S.No.606 of 1971, on the file of the V-Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The suit was filed by respondents for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the agricultural land in Sy.No.219 of Yapral Village. The petitioners allege that in March, 2011 on the permission granted by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the defence personnel have erected barriers/check posts on either side of LLR, preventing entry of civilians and movement of vehicular traffic through LLR. The petitioners on account of road barriers on either side of LLR are unable to access the land owned by them in Sy.No.219 of Yapral Village. It is the definite case of petitioners that except LLR, the petitioners do not have approach road to the lands in Sy.No.219 of Yapral Village. The petitioners refer to the inconvenience allegedly faced by the families living in the neighbourhood localities of LLR. According to petitioners, the Golf Course and the LLR wer
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
