IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.23589 OF 2007 Between: D.Kothapalli Rajaiah. … Petitioner AND The Gram Panchayat, Dharmaram, Karimnagar District, rep. By its Village Secretary and two others.. … Respondents This Court made the following: O R D E R : The petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0.11 guntas in Survey No.225/2 of Dharmaram Village and Mandal of Karimnagar District. He claims to be residing in the subject land, having constructed a house thereon with due permission from the Gram Panchayat, Dharmaram, Karimnagar District. His grievance in the present writ petition was that the Gram Panchayat, Dharmaram and the Roads and Buildings Department of the State were interfering with his property for the purpose of road widening and for installing a statue. Alleging that they had not issued any notice to him and had not followed the due procedure laid down by law, he filed the present writ petition. 2. This Court, by interim order dated 06-11-2007, directed the respondents in the writ petition not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the subject land and building in Dharmaram Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District, without following the due process of law. 3. The Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Dharmaram, filed a counter admitting the petitioner’s possession and interest over the subject land and building. He stated that there was no requirement for the Gram Panchayat to take the petitioner’s land for erecting a statue. He also stated that the Gram Panchayat had not taken up any road widening as yet and therefore, the question of paying compensation to the petitioner did not arise. He further stated that the writ petition had been filed only upon the apprehension of the petitioner that the Gram Panchayat, Dharmaram was trying to disturb his possession over the subject land and building, which was not the case. 4. The Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings Department, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District, filed a separate counter denying that any road widening was being taken up by his department. He stated that no such work was taken up and that in the event there were any proposal for road widening, his department would follow the due procedure laid down by law. He specifically stated that erection of the statue near the petitioner’s premises did not in any manner affect his property. He further stated that the petitioner’s property did not need be acquired in connection with the erection of this statue. 5. The stand of the respondents, as demonstrated by the above counters, is to the effect that they were not initiating any steps either for the purpose of road widening or for erection of the statue in such manner as would have an adverse effect upon the petitioner’s land and building. Their categorical assertion that they would follow the due procedure laid down by law in the event the petitioner’s land or building are required is taken on record. The Writ Petition is accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 24-02-2011. KVS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.23589 OF 2007 February 24, 2011