THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5573 of 2011 Dated 28th March, 2011 Between: Puppala Kamalamma and others …Petitioners And The Gram Panchayat, Konaraopet Village, Konaraopet Mandal, Karimnagar District, rep.by its Secretary and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.V.Ramana Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri P.Raghavender Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2: GP for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners on apprehension that respondent No.1 may remove their existing houses either wholly or in part in connection with the proposed road widening filed the present writ petition for a mandamus to restrain the respondents from doing so. According to the petitioners, the existing structures, in which, they are living belong to their families from the time of their ancestors and that without following due process of law, respondent No.1 is seeking to demolish the same in the name of road widening. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.1-Gram Panchayat, wherein it is inter alia admitted that the petitioners are the owners of the houses referred to in the writ affidavit and that there is an existing road of 20’ width in front the petitioners’ houses connecting the agricultural fields, other main roads of the Village and bypass road leading to Nimmapally Village. It is further stated that the Gram Panchayat initially passed a resolution on 26.02.2011 to widen the road to 30’, but when the Villagers objected to the said proposal, the Gram Panchayat has restricted the work to the strengthening of the existing 20’ road. It is also stated that respondent No.1 has issued notices to the petitioners to leave proper setbacks to their houses by removing the encroachments from the public road. At the hearing, Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, stated that even though respondent No.1 initially intended to widen the existing 20’ road to 30’, in view of the stiff resistance put up by the Villagers, including the petitioners, the said proposal was dropped and without disturbing the existing houses shown in the photographs filed by the petitioners, respondent No.1 is proposing to strengthen the existing road. He further stated that in future if respondent No.1 seeks to widen the road, it will follow due process of law for removing the alleged encroachments from the public property. The above statement of the learned Standing Counsel is placed on record and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 07.03.2011, granted by this Court shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.6921 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th March, 2011 VGB