THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23126 of 2000 O R D E R: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the respondent-authorities in trying to lay a new road, contrary to the proceedings of the third respondent dated 10-07-1991 and the letter dated 15-02-2000, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims to be the owner and to be in possession of the lands in Sy.Nos.931 and 932 of Kondapalakala Village, Manakondur Mandal, Karimnagar District. He would contend that the authorities had laid a pucca road of morram and metal on the existing ghat road, that the said road was being regularly maintained by the Panchayat Raj Department, which connects Kondapalakala with Banjaripally, that one Sri P.Pratap Reddy made a complaint in the year 1991 alleging that there was a cart track and that the existing road be realigned. Petitioner would contend that the road being maintained by the Panchayat Raj Department was in existence for the past 30 years, that on the complaint made by Sri P.Pratap Reddy, a spot enquiry was conducted, that the third respondent had, thereafter, held that the alignment of the road could not be changed and that it was only due to rivalry, the said complaint was made. Petitioner would contend that on the representation of several persons, who are inimical towards him, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, had, again conducted enquiry and that the third respondent again issued notice on 23-10-2000 that he would cause veriﬁcation in this regard. Petitioner’s grievance is that the ﬁrst respondent was trying to lay a road alleging that there was cart track in the sketch map, which ran over Sy.Nos.931 and 932, and that, as a result, his land would be split causing diﬃculty for agriculture besides loss of land. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the third respondent- Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, it is stated that a local enquiry was conducted by the then Revenue Divisional Officer in the presence of both the petitioner and Sri P.Pratap Reddy, that he had submitted a detailed report to the Collector on 10-07-1991, that the villagers of Kondapalakala had ﬁled a petition on the same dispute regarding the road which had been formed in Sy.No.913 long back, that in the enquiry, it was revealed that the road had already been formed in Sy.No.913 long back, that the Government in Panchayat Raj Department had also incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,50,000/- for metteling etc., that the villagers are using it peacefully, that according to the Deputy Inspector, the width of the cart track, shown in the survey map, was only 20 feet, but the width of the road already formed is 30 feet and that the land aﬀected in the already formed road and the old cart track was not in use for the last 30 years. While the writ petition was admitted, no interim orders were passed, and, as a result, it is stated that the road has been laid over the alleged cart track which existed earlier which the petitioner claims to be over his land. Sri A.Sudershan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that this was gross wastage of public funds and while the respondent- authorities had already spent a considerable sum to maintain the existing road, the alignment of the road was needlessly changed and a new road was laid over the petitioner’s land. It is not in dispute that the road has been laid over the alleged cart track during the pendency of the writ petition. I see no reason to now direct the respondents to demolish the road or to go into the question as to whether any useful purpose was served in their laying a new road when there existed a road earlier. If, however, as contended by the petitioner, a new road was laid over his land, it would amount to depriving him of his land without authority of law and, thereby, violating Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Since this contention has been made during the course of arguments and the relief sought for is only with regard to laying of road, ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to submit a detailed representation along with documents in support thereof to establish that the land, over which the road has now been laid, belongs to the petitioner. In case, if it is found that the road is laid over the petitioner’s land, the respondents may have to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act to acquire the petitioner’s land and to pay him compensation in this regard. Sri A.Sudershan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner would submit a representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the third respondent, who shall within four weeks from the date of petitioner’s representation examine the same and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:10-09-2008 usd