HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 3503 OF 2025

O R D E R:

Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of lands situated in various survey numbers of Yamnampet village and that the adjoining villages of Pocharam, Yamnampet and Rampally have evolved into residential localities over the past several decades. This residential character is not of recent origin but was statutorily recognised as far back as 1988 under the Master Plan Notification, through which the lands in the said villages were earmarked and converted for residential purposes. It is asserted that an ancient village cart track known as Bandla Baata has historically existed in the region, serving as the primary connecting pathway between Pocharam, Yamnampet and Rampally and the said Bandla Baata has been in continuous use by villagers, landowners and neighbouring landholders for generations and that it constitutes a customary and legally protected pathway under Sections 24 and 65 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. According to petitioner, this historical pathway forms part of the public pathways that must remain unobstructed and accessible for movement, and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have no authority to interfere with such rights.

1.1. Petitioner states that in 2002, Respondent No. 2 invoked the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 for acquiring a Right of User (ROU) to an extent of 18 metres width across the relevant survey numbers. Though the statutory acquisition was for an 18-metre corridor, pipeline was ultimately laid only in a width of approximately 4 metres. According to him, the remaining 14 metres were expressly left as a Right of Way for ingress and egress of repair vehicles, patrol teams and maintenance equipment. Petitioner further states that despite the ROU acquisition, title and possession of the land remained with the landowners and only a limited operational right was granted to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He argues that at the time of laying the pipeline, lands through which ROU was acquired were already notified as residential under the 1988 Master Plan and were part of developing residential layouts. Petitioner therefore, contends that laying the pipeline in such residential land was contrary to Section 7(1)(a) of the 1962 Act, which prohibits laying pipelines in land used for residential purposes, rendering the initial pipeline alignment itself contrary to the statutory mandate.

1.2. Petitioner further contends that restrictions imposed under Section 9 of the 1962 Act are limited and specific and do not include any prohibition against laying or developing a road. He points out that Section 9 only prohibits (i) construction of any building or permanent structure, (ii) excavation within the ROU, and (iii) planting of trees. A road is neither a building nor a permanent structure nor an excavation, therefore, does not fall within any restricted category. Petitioner asserts that laying a road is an activity fully consistent with the limited nature of ROU acquisition because ROU does not extinguish ownership, possession or the landowner's easementary rights. According to him, landowner retains the fundamental right to use the surface of the land, including right of passage, right to maintain existing village pathways and right to continue utilising the land in all respects except those expressly restricted by Section 9.

1.3. Petitioner further asserts that the remaining extent of 14 metres within ROU corridor is, in fact, part of public roads left out in residential layouts formed in Pocharam, Yamnampet and Rampally. Such roads were formed decades ago as layout roads and that, under Section 294 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, all layout roads automatically vest in the 4^th Respondent Municipality once the layout is approved or once such roads are used for public purposes. He states that the pipeline is laid only along the northern or southern edge of th