Judgment This Second Appeal is filed by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.54 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, Guntur, in A.S.No.217 of 2000, which, in turn, arose out of the judgment and decree dated 07-11-2000, passed in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit. The plaintiffs own houses in Guntur town, abutting a 100 feet road. They filed O.S.No.54 of 1999 in the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur against the defendants, i.e. the State of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Corporation of Guntur and the Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur, for the relief of declaration to the effect that they have a right to reach the public road situated in the southern side of their house shown as ABCDEF in the plaint, and for consequential mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 and 2 i.e. the appellant and the 1st respondent herein to remove the constructions, made in the site marked as DEFGH in the plaint, in an area of 15 x 7 ½ feet, so that they can have free access to the public road and for perpetual injunction, restraining the appellant and the respondents 1 and 2 from making construction in the said site. It was pleaded that the 1st plaintiff became owner of the plot No.1 shown in the plaint schedule, on the basis of a relinquishment deed dated 22-09-1972 executed by Smt. Gudibandi Bapamma whereas the 2nd plaintiff purchased item 2, shown in the plaint schedule, through two sale deeds dated 15-07-1979 and 01-08-1980 and that they are in continuous possession of the same. It was stated that they constructed houses on their plots and that the houses are assessed to tax by the 3rd defendant. They pleaded that the 1st defendant published a notification on 23-01-1999 proposing to start a rytu bazaar near Swamy Theatre, Guntur, and thereafter the defendants 2 and 3 started construction of a shed of zinc sheets, in front of their houses in the road margin and their access to the main road was blocked. According to the plaintiffs, there was absolutely no legal basis for the defendants in blocking their way and construction of tin sheds on the road margin. All the three defendants filed separate written statements. According to the plaintiffs, there was absolutely no legal basis for the defendants in blocking their way and construction of tin sheds on the road margin. All the three defendants filed separate written statements. Their uniform case was that the sheds were constructed between the service road and the ring road and in that view of the matter, the access of the appellants to ring road is not blocked at all. Through its judgment dated 07-11-2000, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by that, the plaintiffs filed A.S.No.217 of 2000 in the Court of District Judge, Guntur. The appeal was allowed, and thereby, the suit was decreed, through judgment dated 19-11-2007. Hence, this Second Appeal. Smt. Lalitha, learned counsel for the 2nd defendant submits that the Government has taken a policy decision to establish rytu bazaars in almost every town, to ensure that the prices of vegetables are controlled and the interest of farmers are protected. She submits that the width of the ring road near Swamy Theatre in Guntur was required to be 100 feet, but on finding that the width at that particular place is about 160 feet, the road margin between the service road and the ring road was utilized for that purpose. She contends that the plaintiffs do not have any right to complain about the establishment of rytu bazaar, which is serving the public at large. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court has dismissed the suit on finding that the plaintiffs failed to make out a case, but the lower Appellate Court has proceeded on hyper-technical grounds and dismissed the suit. Sri V. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, on the other hand, submits that the roads and the road margins have a definite purpose to serve and they cannot be put to any other use, blocking the very access. He contends that the ring road was formed according to a plan, duly leaving the open spaces for better flow of traffic and growth of greenery, and the defendants have not only encroached upon open space and road margin, but also part of the service road and made almost permanent constructions of tin sheds. He contends that the ring road was formed according to a plan, duly leaving the open spaces for better flow of traffic and growth of greenery, and the defendants have not only encroached upon open space and road margin, but also part of the service road and made almost permanent constructions of tin sheds. Learned counsel submits that the Market Committee can conduct its business only in the places that are acquired by it, in accordance with law, or in the place, which is allotted by the competent authority or the Government, and that in the instant case, steps of that nature were not taken at all. The plaintiffs filed the suit, claiming the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction. The declaration was not in respect of any rights of ownership, but their right to have access to a nearby public road. The defendants have made their respective stands clear, by filing separate written-statements. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for. On behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-15 were filed. While Ex.A-1 is the plan, Exs.A-2 to A-5 are the documents through which, the plaintiffs are said to have acquired title to their lands. Exs.A-10 to A-15 are photographs, depicting the state of affairs. On behalf of the defendants DWs 1 and 2 were examined, and Exs.B-1 to B-8 were filed. The trial Court dismissed the suit. In A.S.No.217 of 2000 filed by the plaintiffs, the lower Appellate Court framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that they have right to reach the ring road situated on the southern side of their houses from their houses. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction as prayed for. 3. Whether the findings of the trial Court are sustainable in law and on facts. The appeal was allowed and thereby the suit was decreed. The Second Appeal arises out of the reversing judgment, and in that view of the matter, it needs a close scrutiny. The 2nd defendant is a creation under the A.P. Agricultural Market Committees Act. 3. Whether the findings of the trial Court are sustainable in law and on facts. The appeal was allowed and thereby the suit was decreed. The Second Appeal arises out of the reversing judgment, and in that view of the matter, it needs a close scrutiny. The 2nd defendant is a creation under the A.P. Agricultural Market Committees Act. It is conferred with the power to establish agricultural markets, which includes vegetable markets also, at various places in the State. While in some cases, the places for establishment of market committees are allotted by the concerned local authorities, or the Government, in other cases, the market committees themselves acquire the properties, if necessary, by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Government took a policy decision to establish rytu bazaars with a view to provide places for the farmers, to sell their agricultural produce, particularly, the vegetables, produced by them. The objective was to avoid middlemen, and thereby to control prices. Howsoever laudable the objective may be, a market of that nature can be established only in an open place, acquired through whatever means, referred to above. Instead, the rytu bazaar in Guntur town was established on a road margin, existing between the ring road and the service road. The photographs, Exs.A-10 to A-15, that are filed along with the suit, reveal that not an inch of road margin was left, and the tin sheds were constructed in the entire road margin. The left over vegetables or the resultant filth is naturally thrown on the service road, and thereby, rendering the life of the residents in the locality uncomfortable, if not miserable. In case the defendant 1 or 3, i.e., the Government, or the Municipal Corporation of Guntur, has allotted any land to the 2nd defendant, for establishment of the rytu bazaar, no objection can be raised to the activity of the 2nd defendant, unless the very allotment is challenged. This Court pointedly asked the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether there existed any permission or allotment in favour of the agricultural market committee, to utilize the road margin, abutting the ring road, as a rytu bazaar. The Second Appeal was adjourned on few occasions, to enable the learned counsel to obtain the information. It is ultimately reported that no such allotment was made. The Second Appeal was adjourned on few occasions, to enable the learned counsel to obtain the information. It is ultimately reported that no such allotment was made. It is not clear as to whether the tin sheds were constructed by the market committee, or the Municipal Corporation, or by some influential groups. Of late, a tendency has developed, wherein, organized groups undertake their own activities with the tacit support of the statutory bodies. While the beneficiaries are such groups, the public at large are made to suffer. The Municipal Corporation, which mercilessly removes a construction made within the private land, either without permission or in deviation of the permission; has chosen to look the other way, and the road margin and part of the road was virtually converted into a market place. The plaintiffs specifically complain that their access to the ring road is totally blocked, and the service road is almost encroached. The plea of the 2nd defendant, that there existed larger place, than what was needed for the ring road; is not substantiated by any document. As observed earlier, the 2nd defendant is not supposed to undertake its activity on any land, unless it owns the same, or has the permission from the owners thereof. It may be true that the closure of part of the existing rytu bazaar would cause hardship to the local residents. It, however, needs to be noted that the effort of the plaintiffs is not to restrain the defendants from establishing any rytu bazaar, at all. Their grievance is about their access to the public road. The defendants can certainly establish and run a rytu bazaar in an area belonging to the Government, Municipal Corporation, or the Market Committee, in such a way that it does not result in any encroachment of road, or at least, inconvenience to the public. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. The 2nd defendant, Agricultural Market Committee, however, is granted three months time, from today, to comply with the decree. The miscellaneous petitions filed in the Second Appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.