IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 25642 of 2007 Between: Madoori Sharath Chandhar S/o. Laxmaiah Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Collectors Bunglow Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal,Warangal District. 2 District Panchayath Officer, Warangal, Warangal District. 3 The Extension Officer, P.R. & R.D. R/o.Kodakandla Mandal Parishad,Kodakandla,Warangal District. 4 The Executive Officer, Kodakandla Gram Panchayath, Kodakandla Village and Mandal, Warangal District. 5 The Sarpanch, Kodakandla Gram Panchayat, Kodakandla Village and Mandal, Warangal District. 6 Kundhooru Madhusudan Reddy S/o. Ramchandra Reddy Kodakandla Village and Mandal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus for any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in active connivance of the 6th respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of open land appurtenant to petitioner house bearing No. 1-155, Main Road , Kodakandla Village and Mandal, Warangal District as arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of Article 300-A of Constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondents 2 to 6 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the open land property appurtenant to petitioner house bearing No. 1-155, Main Road, R/o.Kodakandla Village and Mandal, Warangal District and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MRD.V.CHALAPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: G.ELISHA( SC FOR ZPPS AND MPPS,TEL REG) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 25642 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of about 500 sq. yards of land appurtenant to his house bearing No.1-155, Main Road, Kodakandla Village and Mandal, Warangal District. His grievance is that the Gram Panchayat is proposing to construct the compound wall and building within that land by treating it as public property. He has stated the manner in which he has inherited the property along with his uncle and as to how the property was partitioned. He contends that though he approached the District Collector and the District Panchayat Oﬃcer with representations, no action was taken thereon. The ﬁfth respondent herein ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit. It is stated that the land in question is being used by public be it as a bus-stand or for other public purposes for the past 40 years and with a view to repair an old library building and to protect the property, compound wall is being constructed. The petitioner impleaded the 7th respondent, the trust, which is said to have been given equivalent share to that of the petitioner by his uncle. The seventh respondent ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit almost sailing with the petitioner. Heard Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri K.Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri B.Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No.7. Though the petitioner stated that he has approached respondents 1 and 2 with representations narrating his grievance, he did not mention the developments thereon. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the ﬁfth respondent, it is stated that the second respondent has initially granted stay on 01-12-2007 and after calling for a report from the Extension Oﬃcer, passed ﬁnal orders on 03-12-2007 refusing to grant any relief. The petitioner claims absolute title over the land referred to above. There are serious disputes as to the nature of enjoyment over the property. On behalf of the ﬁfth respondent, it is pleaded that the land is being utilized for public purposes for the past 40 years. However, they did not make any claim of ownership. In a way, the petitioner has also admitted the fact that the land is being utilized by the others, but, according to him, the use was with his permission. When so many disputed questions of fact exist, this Court cannot embark upon adjudication of any rights of the petitioner. The petitioner has already approached the District Panchayat Oﬃcer and suﬀered an order. If he is so advised, either he can pursue the remedies vis-à-vis the order passed by the District Panchayat Oﬃcer on 03-12-2007 or file a suit for declaration or mere injunction. Hence the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the aforesaid remedies. However, it is directed that whether or not the petitioner approaches any forum, the respondents shall not obstruct access to his house in the process of making the proposed construction. No costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:07-11-2008 usd