IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THIS THE 19th DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 W.P.No.3711 of 2008 Between: Gurram Satyanarayana Prasad ... PETITIONER(S) and The Ponnekallu Gram Panchayat, represented by its Secretary, Ponnekallu Village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District and others …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.3711 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner states that the 4th respondent is making construction within the limits of Ponnekallu Gram Panchayat of Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District, by encroaching a public lane. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he submitted a complaint to respondents 1 to 3, in this regard, no action has been taken either to stop the construction or to demolish the encroached portion. He contends that the construction being undertaken by the 4th respondent is unauthorized one and, if permitted, would cause inconvenience to the local residents. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit. According to him, the representation dated 08.02.2008 was received from the petitioner and from some more persons about the construction being made by the 4th respondent, and soon thereafter local inspection was caused. It is stated that none of the facts mentioned in the representation are true and that the petitioner is trying to project his civil dispute with the 4th respondent in the form of a complaint. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for 3rd respondent and the learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent. The petitioner has described the manner in which he is said to have acquired the property in the limits of Ponnekallu Village. He has also stated that the 4th respondent has made construction encroaching the public lane. He is under the impression that the representation submitted by him to the 1st respondent was not acted upon. The counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent reveals that immediately, local inspection was conducted and it is found that the 4th respondent made construction strictly in accordance with the approved plan, without any encroachments. If the petitioner has any civil disputes with the 4th respondent, he has to seek redressal before a competent Civil Court. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to seek redresal for any civil dispute with the 4th respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 19th January 2010 CVRK