THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9619 of 2010 Dated:27.04.2010 Between: Gandu Sridhar. ….Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its District Collector, Nalgonda District, At Nalgonda District, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9619 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is allegedly owner of land admeasuring Acs.2.30 guntas in Survey No.480 and Ac.1.26 guntas in Survey No.481 situated at Telagagudem, Hamlet of Bheemaram Village of Kethepally Mandal in Nalgonda District. Statedly, he obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds. The second respondent issued orders vide proceedings No.B/1226/2009, dated 04.03.2010, directing the third respondent to restore the pathway in survey Nos.480 and 481. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking invalidation of the said order. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area). A perusal of the impugned order of the second respondent would show that the fourth respondent made a complaint to the second respondent that the petitioner herein occupied the pathway in survey Nos.480 and 481 of Telagagudem. The third respondent enquired into the matter and submitted report on 03.03.2010 to the effect that the pathway in survey Nos.480 and 481 to the extent of 10 feet has been occupied by the petitioner, and requested for permission to remove the encroachment. Considering the report, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued permission to the Tahsildar to restore the pathway. The petitioner’s apprehension that he will be evicted from his land is not correct. Even as per the impugned proceedings the petitioner occupied the pathway to the extent of 10 feet, and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. When the pathways, roads and passages are meant for the people to pass and repass, encroachments cannot be allowed. When the permission was sought by the Tahsildar, the second respondent gave permission. This Court does not find any infirmity in the said order. The Writ Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 27.04.2010 vs