IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 23648 of 2008 Between: Kannedi Surya Rao, S/o. Sattayya, R/o. Vaddovaro[et, H/o. Cheyyeru, Katreinikona Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by is Secretary Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The District Panchayat Raj Officer, East Godavari District. 3 The Assistant Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, Katrenikona Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 The Divisional Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 5 The Gram Panchayat of Cheyyeru, Rep by its Executive Officer, Cheyyeru Village, Katrenikonda Mandal, East Godavari 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 or direction particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying the laying the road in front of my house by demolish my house Door No. 3-36 in R.S.No. 481 in Vaddivaripeta H/o. Cheyyeru Village of Katrenikona Mandal East Godavari District illegal, arbitrary and violation of principal natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the petitioner house bearing Door No. 3-36 in R.S.No. 481 in Vaddivaripeta H/o. Cheyyeru Village of Katrenikona Mandal East Godavari District without following due process of law under the Land Acquisition act. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : O R D E R:- Assailing the action of the respondents in trying to lay the road in front of his house bearing D.No.3-36 constructed in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents of land in R.S.No.481 situated in Vaddivaripeta, H/o.Cheyyeru village, Katrenikona Mandal, East Godavari District by seeking to demolish his house without issuing any notice and without following due process under law, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking appropriate directions to the respondents. This Court, on 30.10.2008, while ordering Notice Before Admission, passed the following order: “There shall be interim stay of demolition of any structure raised by the petitioner within the area assigned to him. It is made clear that if construction is made on the road margin or the petitioner has encroached upon the road, it shall be open for the respondents to demolish the same.” The 5th respondent has filed counter affidavit inter alia denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and stated that the petitioner did not build any house, and no house number was allotted. It is further stated that R.S.No.481 was subdivided into R.S.No.481/1 and 481/2, and a drainage hole is existing in R.S.No.481/1, and in R.S.No.481/2, there is an existing road and there is no possibility for the petitioner to construct any building over the said land. As a matter of fact, the petitioner and several villagers occupied some extents of vacant lands in S.No.479 and constructed slabs therein with steps, and even to those encroachments, no pattas were granted in their favour, and these encroachments are causing inconvenience to the general public, and the steps have to be removed for widening the road. It is further stated in the counter that except the petitioner, all the villagers voluntarily removed the encroachments made by them for widening the road. On 22.6.2009, when this matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner represented that the petitioner voluntarily removed the encroachment made by him, which is causing obstruction for widening the road. Today, when the matter is called, the learned Standing Counsel for Panchayat Raj appearing for the 5th respondent has submitted that the petitioner has not removed the steps constructed by him, thereby causing inconvenience to the general public. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that the petitioner removed the unauthorized encroachment made by him, but the learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, represented that the petitioner has not removed the encroachment. Apart from that the petitioner does not have any right over the land in question, particularly to encroach the footpath and make constructions, which is causing inconvenience to the general public. Moreover, the other villagers voluntarily removed the encroachments made by them on the footpath, which are causing inconvenience to the general public. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish his legal right, as such, this Court cannot grant any relief in his favour. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 23rd June, 2009 bcj