THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1579 of 2014 Between:
Dated 21st August, 2014 J.Vidya Sagar and another And Yadagiri and another …Petitioners …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar Counsel for the respondents: Sri Siva S.Lanka The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is filed against the order, dated 04.03.2014, in C.M.A.No.129 of 2012, on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
The petitioners filed the above-mentioned suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents and persons claiming through them from causing interference with their right to peaceful entry on the western side portion of house bearing Municipal No.11-1-177, admeasuring 52.5 sq.yards out of 105 sq.yards, with a built up area of 140 sq.ft., of Bapunagar, Tirumala Nagar, Saroornagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Along with the suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.648 of 2012 for temporary injunction. The trial Court by order, dated, 24.08.2012, dismissed the said application. The lower appellate Court by its order, dated 04.03.2014, in C.M.A.No.129 of 2012, has confirmed the same.
I have heard Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Siva S.Lanka, learned counsel for the respondents.
In paragraph-12 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it has been specifically observed that there is a road on the immediate western side of the petitioners’ house, that use of the said road by them shall not normally affect the rights of the respondents and that the respondents failed to explain as to what right they have in obstructing the petitioners from creating an entrance to the 15’ public road in order to have access to the same. However, the only ground on which the lower appellate has declined the relief of injunction is that the petitioners have failed to establish that they have a right of access on western side road.
In my opinion, any member of general public is entitled to use any public road. The only problem that appears to persist is that a compound wall separates the house of the petitioners and the 15’ road. The house of respondent No.1 is situated on one side of the compound wall and the house of the petitioners is situated on the other side of the compound wall. Respondent No.1 obviously does not want the petitioners to use the 15’ road passing in front of their house by breaking the compound wall. The fact, however, remains that the compound wall does not belong to the respondents. In a situation where neither the road through which the petitioners are claiming access is a private road nor any right is vested in the respondents over the wall, the latter are not entitled to obstruct the petitioners from using the road if necessary by creating a passage though the existing wall.
A perusal of the photographs filed by the petitioners, the authenticity of which is not disputed, shows that a part of the existing compound wall has already been broken in order to create access to the public road by the petitioners.
Sri Siva S.Lanka, learned counsel for the respondents, has not disputed this position.
In these facts and circumstances of the case, without rendering any conclusive finding on the right of the petitioners to create access to 15’ wide road by removing the compound wall, it is appropriate that the petitioners are permitted to use the 15’ wide road without causing hindrance to the enjoyment of the properties of the respondents situated adjacent to the 15’ wide public road. The use of access by the petitioners to the said public road shall however be subject to the result of the suit. It is made clear that the observations made and the findings rendered in this order shall not have any bearing on the disposal of the main suit and the trial Court shall not be influenced by this order while adjudicating the suit. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel to disposal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.2223 of 2014 shall stand dismissed as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st August, 2014
VGB