HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PEITITON No. 10010 OF 2003 Dated 27th January, 2010 Between: Ch. Ramesh ………Petitioner And The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District ………..Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. V. Baby Rani for Sri P.V. Ramana Counsel for the respondent : Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of Ac.7.20 cents of land comprised in Survey No. 43/1 of Mummidivaram Village, Gowridevipeta Gram Panchayat, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District for laying a road from Gowridevipeta to Old Gowdridevipeta as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be the owner and pattadar of the above mentioned land. He has alleged that due to political rivalry, at the instance of his political adversaries, the respondent has taken up the above mentioned road work by issuing a tender notification. According to the petitioner, before issuing the tender notification, the respondent has not acquired the land by following the procedure contemplated by law. The petitioner therefore termed the action of the respondents as ‘illegal and unconstitutional’. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondent. As the respondent failed to controvert any of the averments contained in the affidavit, the plea of the petitioner that the respondent is seeking to interfere with his land for the purpose of laying a road without following due process of law deserves to be accepted. The law is well settled that no person can be deprived of his property without following the due process of law. If the respondent intends to lay a road for a public purpose over the private land of the petitioner, it is incumbent upon him either to take the consent of the petitioner or to acquire the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As the respondent failed to plead that he has followed either of these two procedures, he is restrained from interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the above mentioned land without following due legal process as indicated above. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated: 27th January, 2010 ks