COMMON ORDER W.P.No. 19933 of 2012 The above writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent Corporation in depriving the petitioners of the right of access to the main road by permitting and continuing the encroachments on the land acquired by it for the purpose of Tadipudi Pipeline in S.No.7/2B of Gopalapatnam village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal and Visakhapatnam District and further trying to access the encroachments to property tax under political influence as illegal, capricious and opposed to public policy and consequently direct the respondent Corporation to evict the encroachers...' W.P.No.40066 of 2012 2. The above writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: '... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in directing the 2nd respondent to address to the 1st respondent not to approve any plans for construction, behind the back of the petitioners and its predecessors in title, in petitioner land in S.No.7/2 of Gopalapatnam village and 1st respondent's consequent action in rejecting petitioners' application for conversion of land use vide proceedings in Rc.No.007615/2012/ACP-VI, dated 19.11.2012 on account of a G.O., which no more subsists on account of the repeal of the ULC Act, 1976 and also the rejection of petitioners building application vide proceedings B.A.NO.14277/2012/ACP/VI dated 23.11.2012 on the same ground and also for the reason of the encroachments on the land acquired by the first respondent for the purpose of Tadipudi Pipeline in S.No.7/2B of Gopalapatnam village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal as illegal, capricious and opposed to public policy and violative of petitioners' right guaranteed under Article 14, 19, 21 and 301a of the Constitution of India.' 3. a) Case of the petitioners, in brief, is that 1st petitioner company and 2nd petitioner purchased land admeasuring 7,393.20 square yards out of Ac.2.03 cents covered by old S.No.7-B and new S.No.7/2A of Gopalapatnam village under four registered sale deeds dated 25.04.2012 from M/s LG Polymers India Private Limited. The land covered by new S.No.7/2B was acquired by the Corporation for the purpose of laying Tadipudi Reservoir pipeline vide Award No. 11/1969 from the vendors of petitioners i.e. LG Polymers (the then Hindustan Polymers). The land acquired is assigned as S.No.7/2B. The land covered by new S.No.7/2B was acquired by the Corporation for the purpose of laying Tadipudi Reservoir pipeline vide Award No. 11/1969 from the vendors of petitioners i.e. LG Polymers (the then Hindustan Polymers). The land acquired is assigned as S.No.7/2B. b) Petitioners' plots are covered by private properties on three sides. Ingress and egress, to the land purchased by petitioners, is through the land covered by S.No.7/2B. It is also an Easement of necessity. The land acquired for the pipeline is supposed to remain vacant and the respondent, i.e. the Corporation; should not allow encroachments. However, the said piece of land was occupied by the encroachers. Petitioners approached the officials to remove the encroachments; however, no steps were taken in that regard. c) Since the officials are not taking any action regarding removal of encroachments, petitioners filed W.P.No. 19933 of 2012. d) Petitioners submitted application for change of land use to 1st respondent fide application in Rc.No.007615/2012 dated 25.05.2012. The said application was rejected by the authority based on the communication of 2nd respondent in Rc.No.6698/76/Gl, dated 15.09.2012 on the ground that the vendors of the petitioners violated the conditions imposed in G.O.Ms.No.526 dated 21.06.1997. The petitioners submitted building plans to 1st respondent vide application in B.A.No. 14277/2012/ACP-VI dated 13.09.2012 for construction of multi-storied residential complex comprising of stilt + G + five floors. The said application was rejected on the ground that vendors violated the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.526. Assailing the endorsements dated 19.11.2012 and 23.11.2012, petitioners filed W.P.No.40066 of 2012. 4. Pending the writ petitions, the Managing Director of 1st petitioner died, and his legal representative was brought on record as 3rd petitioner. 5. a) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Corporation, it was contended, interalia, that the Corporation acquired land covered by new S.No.7/2B for the purpose of laying Tadipudi reservoir pipeline. Certain encroachments were made which are in existence for more than two decades. The encroachments are situated between the properties of petitioners and Gopalapatnam main road, which has been widened to 100 feet road under BRTS programme. The petitioners have access through 20 feet road on the Southern side of their property. While implementing the Master Plan, the encroachments were partly removed falling in line in BRTS corridor. Mere assessment of property to tax shall not confer any right to the encroachers. The petitioners have access through 20 feet road on the Southern side of their property. While implementing the Master Plan, the encroachments were partly removed falling in line in BRTS corridor. Mere assessment of property to tax shall not confer any right to the encroachers. The encroachments will be removed as and when further road widening is taken up. b) The Special Officer and Competent Authority under Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam vide letter Rc.No.6698/76/Gl, dated 15.09.2012 stated that M/s LG Polymers Private Limited, Visakhapatnam violated the conditions of allotment imposed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.526 dated 21.06.1997 and requested not to approve any type of plans. In view of the letter addressed by the Special Officer and Competent Authority under Urban Land Ceiling, the sale transaction, itself, is in violation of G.O.Ms.No.526 dated 21.06.1997. 6. Additional counter affidavit was filed, and it was contended that the petitioners cannot claim right over the land in S.No.7/2B. The petitioners did not challenge the endorsement dated 23.11.2012 and eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Counter affidavit was filed by the Joint Collector and competent authority under Urban Land Ceiling. It was contended, interalia, that M/s Hindustan Polymers Private Limited made a representation to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh seeking exemption from the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling. The Government after taking the factual aspects into consideration as well as report submitted by the Commissioner, Industries and Commerce and the Commissioner, Land Reforms, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, granted exemption with certain conditions under Section 20 (1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976. Since the vendor of the petitioners violated the conditions of allotment imposed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.526 dated 21.06.1997, a letter was sent to the Municipal authorities not to approve the plan. The petitioners purchased the land covered by both survey numbers 7B and 7/ 2A and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Reply was filed on behalf of petitioners. It was contended that the memo issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh vide Memo No.37909/-III(2)/2012 dated 09.07.2012, qua the alleged violation of conditions, was set aside by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by judgment dated 28.03.2014. The property in S.No.7/2A is surrounded by property belonging to others on North, West and South. It was contended that the memo issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh vide Memo No.37909/-III(2)/2012 dated 09.07.2012, qua the alleged violation of conditions, was set aside by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by judgment dated 28.03.2014. The property in S.No.7/2A is surrounded by property belonging to others on North, West and South. The property on South in S.No.7/2B belonged to Agricultural Marketing Committee and private road was formed for its use and the said road is not open for general public. 9. Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned senior counsel representing Sri M.Devi Prasad, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Corporation and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 10. Learned senior counsel would submit that the public authorities cannot allow the encroachers to squat on the property, thereby causing inconvenience to the petitioners for ingress and egress. He would also submit that the road on the Southern side is not a common road. He would submit that Memo No.37909/-III(2)/2012 dated 09.07.2012 was set aside by the composite High Court in W.P.No.21934 of 2013 and hence, the Municipal authorities ought not to have rejected the application made for change of land use and the authorities' ought to have considered the application for grant of building permission. He would also submit that petitioner's right of easement is being affected, in view of encroachments made by the encroachers in the land acquired. 11. Per contra, learned standing counsel would submit that an extent of Ac.0.39 cents in S.No.7-2B was acquired vide Award No. 11 of 1969 and the property vested with local authority. The petitioners, as per the recitals in the sale deeds got road on southern side and it is a public road. He would also submit that in fact the petitioners made an application requesting the authorities to construct Stilt + G + 4 floors, however, the said application was rejected as the width of existing road is 20 feet against required width of 30 feet as per Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2012 (for short 'the Buildings Rules'). He would also submit that petitioners cannot claim right of easement under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would submit that some of encroachments were removed, and the remaining encroachments will be removed by following due process. 12. He would also submit that petitioners cannot claim right of easement under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would submit that some of encroachments were removed, and the remaining encroachments will be removed by following due process. 12. Now, the points arise for consideration, in both the writ petitions are: 1) Whether right of easement can be declared in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2) Whether the endorsement dated 23.11.2012 and 19.11.2012 are sustainable? 13. It is settled position of law that disputed questions of law normally shall not be adjudicated in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. In Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: '64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and, also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases the High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petitions under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions. 65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority.' 15. Case at hand, it is an undisputed fact that an extent of Ac.0.32 cents in S.No.7-2B was acquired along with other properties vide Award No. 11 of 1969 dated 14.05.1969 in Gopalapatnam for laying pipeline under TRWS scheme. Once the land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by paying compensation to the owners of the property, the land stood vest with the acquisition authority. The 'right of use' of land alone was not acquired. 16. Petitioners purchased a total extent of 7393.20 square yards under four registered sale deeds. Once the land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by paying compensation to the owners of the property, the land stood vest with the acquisition authority. The 'right of use' of land alone was not acquired. 16. Petitioners purchased a total extent of 7393.20 square yards under four registered sale deeds. In registered sale deed No.945 of 2012, Eastern boundary is shown as road leading from Gopalapatnam to Pendurthi. In fact, the said recital is factually incorrect. In registered sale deed No.946 of 2012, Western boundary is shown as land in S.Nos.9/B, 8/1 and Road. In registered sale deed No.944 of 2012, Southern boundary is shown as land in S.Nos.9/B, 8/1 and Road and Western boundary is shown as land in S.No.8/1, Road and later Market Yard Office. In registered sale deed No.942 of 2012, Eastern boundary is shown as road leading from Gopalapatnam to Pendurti and Southern boundary is shown as land in S.Nos.9/B, 8/1 and Road. In between the road and land purchased by petitioners, Ac. 0.3 2 cents in S.No.7/2B was acquired for the purpose of laying pipeline in the year 1969. However, in two documents of petitioners referred to supra, Eastern boundary is shown as road leading from Gopalapatnam to Pendurti, which is factually incorrect. As seen from the other documents and the rough sketch annexed to the sale deeds, petitioners got road on western and southern sides. In fact, the petitioners made an application to the authorities for construction of stilt + G + 4 floors for residential use in the proposed land in S.No.7/2A and Southern side 20 feet road is shown as approach road. 17. As per Rule 4 of the Building Rules, 30 feet road is required. The requirement of approach road for building site, the minimum abutting existing road width, in respect of non-high rise buildings, is 9 meters which is equivalent to 30 feet. In view of the same, the application was returned on 03.10.2012. It seems, petitioners re-submitted the proposals on 29.10.2012. At that junction, the Corporation received a letter from the Special Officer and Competent Authority under Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam vide Rc.No.6698/76/Cl dated 15.09.2012 pointing out violations of allotment in G.O.Ms.No.526 dated 21.06.1997. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, petitioners have approach road, 20 feet on Southern side and, in fact, the sale deeds would also reflect the same. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, petitioners have approach road, 20 feet on Southern side and, in fact, the sale deeds would also reflect the same. Thus, the petitioners, approached this court without disclosing true facts, after the plan permission was returned. 18. The easement of necessity requires pleadings and evidence. While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as indicated supra, this Court normally will not declare the rights of parties including easement of necessity. 19. A Division Bench of this Court in Kumaravelu Chettiar Subramonian Chettiar Vs. State, AIR 1957 Ker 22 = MANU/KE/0014/1957, has held that application under Article 226 of the Constitution is not an alternative remedy to the usual remedy by way of suit. It was further held that there is no justification for the High Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 for granting relief, particularly when the right claimed is itself in dispute. The following was laid down in paragraph 8 of the judgment: '8..... Since the right claimed by the petitioners is disputed by the Respondents that first thing that the petitioners have to do is to adduce convincing evidence in proof of the existence of the right claimed by them. This can be properly and effectively done in a regular suit rather than in writ petitions like the present ones. It cannot be denied that the reliefs claimed by the petitioners can be obtained by them in a regular suit provided that they are able to adduce the necessary proof for establishing the right claimed by them. Under such circumstances there is no proof for establishing the right claimed by them. Under such circumstances there is no justification for this court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution for granting relief to the petitioners particularly when the right claimed by the petitioners is itself in dispute.' 20. As pointed out supra, petitioners got road on Southern side to reach the plots coupled with the recitals in the documents about road on Southern side, the relief sought qua easement of necessity falls to ground. 21. Regarding the encroachments said to have been made in the land acquired by the Corporation for the purpose of laying pipelines, as seen from the pleadings, the authorities are taking necessary steps and in fact, some parts of encroachments were already removed. 21. Regarding the encroachments said to have been made in the land acquired by the Corporation for the purpose of laying pipelines, as seen from the pleadings, the authorities are taking necessary steps and in fact, some parts of encroachments were already removed. Authorities, in fact mentioned in the counter affidavit that necessary steps will be initiated qua encroachment. 22. It is an undisputed fact that petitioners purchased the property under four registered sale deeds from M/s LG Polymers India Private Limited. M/s Hindustan Private Limited are holding the land of an extent of 101.3985 hectares in Venkatapuram, Repagunta, Gopalapatnam and Valther. The Government, after considering the report submitted by the Commissioner of Industries 8s Commerce; Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad and the representation made by LG Chemicals, which took over Hindustan Private Limited and granted exemption under Section 20 (l)(a) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 with certain conditions. 23. After alienations were made in favour of petitioners, it seems that a show cause notice vide Memo No.34909/UC.III(2)/2012-9, dated 22.05.2013 was issued proposing to cancel the order of exemption in G.O.Ms.No.526 dated 21.06.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.527 dated 05.07.1997. Challenging the same, W.P.No.21934 of 2013 was filed by the vendors of petitioners. Learned single Judge of the composite High Court by judgment dated 28.03.2014 allowed the said writ petition and set aside the memo. Learned single Judge observed that since possession of land of petitioner-company was, admittedly, not taken and de facto possession continued with the petitioner company, it clearly shows that proceedings under ULC Act are not saved as contemplated under the ULC Act. Thus, the land in the hands of the petitioner company remained free hold land after the Repeal Act came into force on 27.03.2008 in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 24. Case at' hand, petitioners purchased the property referred to supra under four registered sale deeds dated 25.04.2012. In view of order in W.P.No.21934 of 2013, the endorsement vide B.A.No. 14277/2012/ACP/VI dated 23.11.2012 and endorsement vide Rc.No.007615/2012/ACP-VI, dated 19.11.2012 are liable to be set aside. The letter of the Special Officer and Urban Land Ceiling dated 15.09.2012, in view order in W.P.No.21934 of 2013, is liable to be set aside. 25. In view of order in W.P.No.21934 of 2013, the endorsement vide B.A.No. 14277/2012/ACP/VI dated 23.11.2012 and endorsement vide Rc.No.007615/2012/ACP-VI, dated 19.11.2012 are liable to be set aside. The letter of the Special Officer and Urban Land Ceiling dated 15.09.2012, in view order in W.P.No.21934 of 2013, is liable to be set aside. 25. The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation shall consider the case of petitioners for change of use of land as well as Building permission plan, if the petitioners make the application, strictly in accordance with Rules, in vogue. Petitioners shall also produce other relevant documents. 26. Accordingly, W.P.No.40066 of 2012 is allowed. W.P.No. 19933 of 2012 is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.