HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.13879 of 2011 Date: October 17, 2011 Between: Bellamkonda Amaravathi … Petitioner And 1. The District Collector, PSR Nellore District, Nellore & 4 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.13879 of 2011 O R D E R: Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Ch. Vedavani, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. With the consent of both the counsel, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner claims to be in possession of an extent of 18 ankanams of land situated in Survey No.127 of Chendodu village, Kota Manndal, Nellore District, under possession certificate No.123/2006 dated 26.02.2007 granted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kota. The petitioner constructed a building on the said site, which is said to be assessed to tax, and the building is provided with electrical service connection. 3. The Secretary of the 4th respondent-Gram Panchayat issued notice dated 20.04.2011 to the petitioner, on the complaint said to have been made by the public, directing him to remove the steps allegedly constructed illegally by occupying and projecting into the public road. 4. The petitioner has challenged the said notice contending that he has constructed the steps within his own land and that the Secretary of the 4th respondent-Gram Panchayat has issued the impugned notice even without prior notice to the petitioner and conducting of survey to verify whether the petitioner has encroached on the public road. 5. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the 4th respondent- Gram Panchayat inter alia stating that the action proposing to remove the steps is in the interest of public and that the villagers without the knowledge of the Gram Panchayat had in fact removed the said encroachment. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute that the petitioner has been allotted land admeasuring an extent of 18 ankanams on which he has constructed a building. The only controversy is whether the petitioner has constructed the steps by encroaching and projecting into the road. While the petitioner contends that the construction of steps is neither on the road nor is it projecting into the road, it is the specific contention of the respondent-Gram Panchayat that such construction is in fact a projection into the public road. 7. Rules are issued in G.O.Ms. No.555, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (rules), dated 03.12.1999 relating to the power to remove obstructions on public street. 8. Rule 1 states that no person shall build any wall or erect any fence or other obstruction or projections or make any encroachment in any street, smaller or bigger. Rule 2 provides that the executive authority shall issue a notice after getting the street surveyed and fixing the outer line of the street, the extent of projection or encroachment made by the owner of the house and specify the manner of encroachment and shall fix a date for removal of such obstruction by an order. Rule 3 states that if the person fails to comply with the notice, the executive authority shall cause the obstruction removed from the street at the cost of such individual and collect it forthwith. 9. It is evident from the aforesaid rules that before an action is initiated for removal of encroachment/projection etc., duty is enjoined upon the executive authority to get the street surveyed and issue a notice to the owner of the house for removal of the encroachment/obstruction. In the instant case, even though in the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner has encroached the public road for an extent of 3 feet, it has not been stated that the executive authority had undertaken survey and fixed the outer line of the road in order to ascertain the said fact. It has also not been stated that the petitioner was put to notice before the impugned notice has been issued. I am, therefore, of the view that the impugned notice did not precede the exercise required under the rules, thereby the impugned notice is not sustainable. 10. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, it appears that the steps have been removed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Secretary of the fourth respondent-Gram Panchayat has highhandedly removed the steps. The Secretary, however, states that the public have resorted to such an act without the knowledge of the Gram Panchayat. The said controversy does not require consideration in this writ petition. It is for the petitioner to agitate the same in an appropriate proceeding. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notice dated 20.4.2011 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The 4th respondent-Gram Panchayat shall cause a survey of the road after due notice to the petitioner and after fixing the outer line of the street take appropriate decision in the matter. 12. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as above. No costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J Date: October 17, 2011. BSB