n THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.16905 of 2007 Dated: .01.2008 Between: Sri Yetikuri Narasimha Raju and another. ..Petitioners. and The Executive Officer,Simhachalam Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam. ..Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.16905 of 2007 ORDER: Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 2. This Court ordered notice before admission on 06.09.2007. Counter affidavit is filed. 3. This writ petition is filed praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the highhanded action of the respondent in obstructing the petitioners in developing the 30 feet road on the western side of their land, situated at D.N.16-190, of Vepagunata(v) Simhachalam, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, direct the respondent not to obstruct them in developing the road on the western side of the above said land. 4. It is stated that the petitioners are jointly purchased the land for an extent of 965.77 sq. yards in Sl.No.187/2B, 2E LRC fields sketch Sl.No.187 of Vepagunta (v) Simhachalam Mandal from one Sri Madishetty Krishana, through a registered sale deed vide document No.5564 of 2003 registered at Sub-Registrar office of Gopalapatnam, dated 03.12.2003. 5. It is stated that the vendor of the petitioners purchased the said land from Smt Dasari Nagalaxmi through a registered sale deed vide document registration No.3723 of 2002, dated 27.08.2002 registered at Sub-Registrar Office, Gopalapatnam. 6. It is further stated that the lands in Vepagunta (v) fall under the Simhachalam hills. The petitioners’ vendor Smt Dasari Nagalaxmi had been paid an amount fixed by the Realization Committee constituted in lieu of G.O.Ms.No.578 of 2000 Revenue (Endowment V) dated 19.08.2000 and regularized the said land. Subsequently, the respondent issued proceedings vide LRC No.SD/932/2002 of Vepakunta (v) dated 20.06.2002 regularizing the above said land and issued land regularization certificate by annexing sketch indicating site plane and boundaries. The regularization certificate along with the sketch annexed, are produced before the Court. 7. It is further stated that the as petitioners intended to construct a house in the above said land, they got applied for permission from Greater Vishakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Authorities. The petitioners in order to reach their contraction that to be planned to construct, they are developing the 30 feet road in the western side of the land, which is also earmarked by the respondent while issuing regularization certification. It is stated that if the 30 feet road i.e, on the western side boundary of the petitioners’ property had not developed, it is very difficult to erect the electrical polls for supply of the power to the petitioners’ land. It is stated that because of non-developing of the 30 feet road on the western side of the petitioners’ land, the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Authorities had not granting permission for construction of house. As such, they are developing the 30 feet road in order to get the permission for their construction of house. But the employees of the respondent are obstructing the petitioner in developing the road without having any right whatsoever over the property after issuing the regularization certificate to the vendor’s vendor of the petitioner. 8. Further, it is stated that the 1st petitioner made a representation to the respondent on 06.06.2007 requesting him to direct their employees not to obstruct the development of road situated at western side of the petitioners’ property by extracting all the reasons. The respondent received the said representation and acknowledged the same. It is stated that the respondent unattended the representation made by the petitioners, and their employees still obstructing the petitioners in developing the 30 feet road on the western side of their land. It is not out of place to mention here that the development of road is the duty of the respondent to make it good for facilitating to lead to the place under regularization, on the other hand, they highhandedly obstructing the petitioners in developing the road. The highhanded action of the respondents and their employees in developing the existing 30 feet road on the western side of the petitioners’ land is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. In such circumstances, the writ petitioners approached this Court praying for appropriate relief as specified supra. 10. In the counter-affidavit sworn to by the Executive Officer of the respondent Devesthanam, it is stated that the averments made in para 2 of the affidavit that the petitioners jointly purchased the land for an extent of 965.77 sq. yards in Sl.No.187/2B, 2E LRC fields sketch Sl.No.187 of Vepagunta village,Simhachalam Mandal from one Sri Madishetty Krishna through a registered sale deed vide document No.5564 of 2003 registered at Sub-Registrar Office of Gopalapatnam, are not known to the respondent Devasthanam. The sale deed is not binding on the respondent. 11. Further, it is stated that the averments made in para 3 of the affidavit that the vendor of the petitioners purchased the said land from Smt Dasari Nagalaxmi through a registered sale deed vide document registration No.3723 of 2002, dated 27.08.2002 are not known to the respondent-Devasthanam. The sale deed is not binding on the respondent. It is stated that the fact that Dasari Nagalakshmi had paid the necessary amount and obtained land regularization certificate in terms of G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000, is itself proof positive that the land belonged to the respondent Devasthanam and petitioners’ predecessors-in-title were in illegal/unauthorized occupation of it and got their illegal/unauthorized occupation regularized. 12. It is also stated that regularization certificate was issued to Smt Dasari Nagalaxmi in terms of G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000. 13. Further, the averments made in para 5 that the petitioners intended to construct a house in the above said land, that they got applied for permission from GVMC; that the petitioners in order to reach their proposed construction is developing 30 feet road in the western side of the land which was also earmarked by the respondent while issuing regularization certificate; that the 30 feet road on the western side boundary of the petitioners’ property was not developed and it was difficult to erect the electrical poles for supply of power to the petitioner’s land, that due to non- development of 30 feet road on the western side of the petitioners’ land, the Municipal Corporation are not granting permission for construction of house, that as such they are developing 30 feet road and that the employees of the respondent are obstructing the petitioners in developing the road without any right are not true and correct. It is stated that the site 965.77 sq. yards for which Dasari Nagalaxmi obtained L.R.Certificate from the L.R.Committee under G.O.Ms.No.578, dated 19.08.2000 is a vacant site, situated in a mango garden belonging to the respondent Devasthanam. There is no layout or any other constructions in the garden. The extent of 965.77 sq. yards for which L.R.Certificate was obtained does not consist any road. The petitioners attempted to lay a road in Devasthanam land by the side of his site. The land protection officials during patrolling found the same and informed them that the land belonged to Devasthanam and it was not covered by L.R.Certificate obtained by Dasari Nagalaxmi and therefore, advised them not to make any road in Devasthanam land. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to lay any road, for which they had not obtained L.R.C. as the L.R.C. obtained by Dasari Nagalaxmi, their alleged predecessor-in-title, did not cover the land on which they attempted to lay road. More than 1500 sq. yards of Devasthanam land is required to lay road claimed by the petitioners for which Dasari Nagalaxmi had not paid any amount and the land was not covered by sale deeds of petitioners or their predecessors. As on today, the land regularizations G.Os are stood cancelled. It is stated that as there is no layout, the question of existence of any road claimed by the petitioners does not arise and the petitioners are not entitled to lay road in Devasthanam land. 14. Further, it is specifically stated that the petitioners attempted to encroach the Devesthanam land under the guise of L.R.C. for exceeding the extent mentioned under the L.R.C. obtained by Dasari Nagalaxmi and tried to lay a road in the Devasthanam land. 15. These are the respective stands taken by the parties. 16. In the light of the specific stand taken in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and further clear stand taken by the respondent in the counter-affidavit, this Court is of the considered opinion that these disputed questions cannot be effectively adjudicated by a Writ Court and hence, liberty is given to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedies in accordance with law. Except making this observation, no positive direction can be given in the present writ petition. 17. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed subject to the above observations. No costs. _______________ P.S.NARAYANA, J Dated: .01.2008 SJ