HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.15925 of 2010 Date : 7-4-2011 Between : Bandam Sanyasi Rao .. Petitioner And The Yellamanchali Gram Panchayat, Represented by its Sarpanch, Yellamanchali and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : None Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Sri G.Elisha, Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri Bokka Satyanarayana The Court made the following : ORDER: At the Interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard Sri G.Elisha, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Bokka Satyanarayana for respondent No.3. The petitioner claimed that he purchased a house situated in Ulka Peta street, Yellamanchali belonging to one Adari Ramana, under registered sale deed dated 23-11- 1992. It is his further pleaded case that at the time of purchase of the said house, his vendor has informed him that he has easementary right over by-lane connected to the main road and that the petitioner can use the same; that from the date of his purchasing the house, he was using the said by-lane; that on 12-6-2010, in his absence, respondent No.3 occupied the said by-lane high-handedly and illegally and raised a wall blocking ingress and egress to his house and that when the petitioner allegedly approached respondent No.3 requesting him to show his document, he refused to do so. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though representations were submitted to respondent Nos.1 and 2, no action has been taken against respondent No.3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 it is inter alia stated that the land over which he has constructed the compound wall exclusively belongs to him and that the same is not a public lane as pleaded by the petitioner. Sri G.Elisha, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 supported the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.3. In my opinion, respondent Nos.1 and 2 can interfere with the construction raised by respondent No.3 only if it is found that the land in question forms part of a public lane. As there is a serious dispute regarding the nature of the land, it is not possible for this court to adjudicate the same in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 in blocking the ingress and egress to his house, the appropriate remedy for him is to approach the competent civil court claiming easementary right. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of a civil suit. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 7-4-2011 AM