IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17137 of 2010 Between: Uppara Chinna Sanjappa ..... Petitioner AND The Secretary Village Secretariat, Maddikara Gram Panchayat, Maddikara, Kurnool District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for respondent No.1: Smt. Ch. Vedavani Counsel for respondents 2&3: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri T.C.D. Sekhar The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17137 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 12.07.2010 of respondent No.1, whereby he has called upon the petitioner to remove a wall raised by him blocking ingress and egress to respondent No.4 and others. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned notice mainly on the ground that no prior show cause notice has been issued to him, as required under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit, wherein he has inter alia averred that the impugned notice was issued under Section 88 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act”). In representation dated 12.04.2010 submitted by respondent No.4 and four others, it is alleged that the petitioner has highhandedly constructed a stone wall over the public rastha (road) with a view to obstruct public access through the said road and that therefore respondent No.1 was constrained to issue the impugned notice. It is further stated that after the notice was given by respondent No.1, the petitioner gave a reply on 26.04.2010 alleging that the stone wall constructed by him is beyond the road and that no obstruction is caused to any one. Further, respondent No.1 made a representation to the Tahsildar, Maddikera on 17.05.2010 regarding the highhandedness of the petitioner in constructing the wall over the public road and that the Tahsildar in turn gave a notice on 12.06.2010 to respondent No.1, the petitioner and other interested persons requesting them to get the road surveyed with the help of Mandal Surveyor on 18.06.2010, but the petitioner failed to attend the survey work on that day even though all others were present. It is further stated that respondent No.1 issued a further notice on 12.07.2010 calling upon the petitioner to remove the unauthorized stone wall constructed by him over the public road. From the above noted averments contained in the counter affidavit, it is evident that at the intervention of the Tahsildar, an attempt was made to conduct survey. However, respondent No.1 has not indicated in the counter affidavit whether such survey was conducted or not. If the petitioner has raised the wall over the public road denying the access to the public, such a wall certainly requires to be removed. However, as the petitioner raised a serious dispute about the allegation that he raised the wall over the public road, it is appropriate that respondent No.1 shall get the survey conducted, as directed by the Tahsildar, after notice to the petitioner and respondent No.4. If it is found after survey that the petitioner has encroached the public road and raised the wall, respondent No.1 shall be free to remove the same, after notice to the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.21599 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 02.11.2010 ES