HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.314 of 2023

J U D G M E N T:

This Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.5 of 2016. Dated 25.01.2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Sathupally confirming the orders passed in O.S.No.149 of 2004 dated 02.06.2016 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Sathupally.

2. The grievance of the appellant herein is that only ingress of the suit schedule property proposed to be allotted to the third party and in the event that appellant will not have any ingress or egress. On perusing the evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that:

“In the case on hand, the plaintiffs had a right of access to the old highway prior to its widening and it is only consequent on widening of the road, due to which the ‘B’ schedule property, which was originally the old highway has come in between the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and the new highway thereby depriving the right of access of the plaintiffs to the new highway. The said action can be questioned by the plaintiffs before on appropriate forum by instituting appropriate proceedings against the proper person. The present suit by the plaintiffs in the manner in which it is framed against the Defendants is not maintainable and the plaintiffs are not entitled for relief.”

3. Aggrieved by the above said order appellant filed first appeal and it was also dismissed on confirming the judgment and decree on the basis that:

“The ‘B’ schedule property in the suit is part and parcel of highway which was earlier used for transport and it is still belongs to R & B Department, it is still in the custody of R & B Department, except the R & B Department, no other Government agency has got any control over the ‘B’ schedule property, but it is not made as a party to the suit. So, suit itself is not maintainable. Moreover, plea of the Appellant cannot be considered to restrain the proceedings that could be taken in future by the Government Departments and the apprehension of the Appellant that, if the land is assigned to any-body or to any ryoths on the pretext in lieu of compensation, it causes much inconvenience to the appellant. Such, plea of the appellant cannot be considered by this Court.”

4. In view of observations of both the Courts, it is clear that the suit has been filed on mere apprehension that ingress and egress of the suit schedule property will be lost in the event, the Schedule-B property is allotted to the third party. It is further observed that on mere presumption and assumptions the appellant cannot seek relief by way in injunction against the State/Government agency which is not tenable.

5. When the matter is taken up for hearing the counsel for appellant represented that as on the date, the Schedule-B property is not allotted to any third party. The learned Government Pleader for respondent represented that no steps have been taken for allotment of the Schedule-B property to the third parties.

6. In view of submissions of learned counsel for the appellant as well as Government Pleader for respondent this Court leave it open to the appellant to take appropriate steps in accordance with law as and when the appellant is affected by any allotment in future including his lease rights. With this observation, this appeal is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHEETTY,J Date:02.01.2024 Bw

305 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.314 of 2023 Dt.: 02.01.2024 Bw