IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3670 of 2003 Between: P.V. Chinnakrishnaiah … Petitioner And Tetagunta Thimmapuram Gram Panchayat, Rep., by its Village Secretary, Thimmapuram Village, Tuni Mandal, E.G. District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3670 of 2003 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to lay a road on the petitioner’s land comprised in Sy.No.693 of Tetagunta Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for the respondents and no counter affidavit is filed on their behalf. The petitioner claims to be the owner of Ac.5.93 cents of land in Sy.No.693 of Tetagunta Village having succeeded to the said property under a will executed by his grandmother. The petitioner averred that the respondents started laying road from Thimmapuram to Goverpeta under “Food for Work” scheme. According to the petitioner, in connection with the execution of the said work, the respondents marked the line by including his land within the alignment for laying the road. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the said action and filed the present writ petition questioning the same. In the absence of a counter affidavit denying the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the failure of the respondents’ counsel to oppose the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is reasonable to presume that the respondents intended to utilize the petitioner’s land without acquiring the same. Unless the respondents initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), it is not permissible for them to utilize any part of the petitioner’s land. Therefore, a Mandamus shall issue to the respondents to refrain them from utilizing any part of the petitioner’s land without initiating proceedings under the provisions of the Act. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.4830 of 2003 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.12.2009 ES