The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.32675 of 2011 Date: 13-12-2011 Between: Pandi Gurrappa ..... Petitioner AND Boilakuntla Gram Panchayat, Boilakuntla Village, Sirvel Mandal, Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.P.Nagendra Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Smt.Ch.Vedavani, SC for Gram Panchayat Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in seeking to construct Gram Panchayat office building on the road margin and also by encroaching part of the petitioner’s land without initiating acquisition proceedings, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner averred that he is the owner of Ac.0-12 cents of land in Survey No.267 of Boilakuntla Village, Sirvel Mandal, Kurnool District and that the respondents have occupied a road poramboke situated between his site and the existing road for construction of the Gram Panchayat building. He also alleged that, in that process, the respondents have also encroached upon 0-03 cents of his land. The petitioner further averred that, when certain individuals tried to encroach upon his land, he filed OS.No.80 of 2011 for grant of injunction in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, and secured an order of injunction in IA.No.564 of 2011 and that, in spite of the said order of injunction being in force, the respondents are proceeding with construction of the Gram Panchayat building by occupying his land. In my opinion, the petitioner has split the causes of action. His grievance against the defendants in O.S.No.80 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, and the respondents herein is common viz., that they have been trying to encroach a part of road Poramboke and also his land. Even though the petitioner has not filed a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.80 of 2011, at the hearing, Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court a copy thereof, a perusal of which would show that defendant No.1 is the Sarpanch of respondent No.1- Gram Panchayat. Even though no allegations relating to the encroachment by respondent No.1 have been made in the plaint, in the affidavit filed in the present Writ Petition, it is clearly stated that, despite subsistence of an order of injunction in respect of the site in question, the respondents have been trying to raise construction thereon. From this, it is reasonable to presume that defendant No.1 in the aforesaid suit being Sarpanch of respondent No.1- Gram Panchayat, obviously, tried to make use of the subject land for the purpose of construction of the Gram Panchayat building. Be that as it may, even if the purposes for which defendant No.1 in the suit and respondent No.1 in the present Writ Petition tried to occupy may be different, still there is no reason for the petitioner not to seek similar relief against respondent No.1 as he has done in the case of the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.80 of 2011. This Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot decide the dispute raised by the petitioner relating to the alleged encroachment of road Poramboke and a part of his land. The nature of the dispute raised by the petitioner requires adjudication after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, which could be done only by the civil Court. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to entertain this Writ Petition. Accordingly, while dismissing the Writ Petition, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the civil Court, in which OS.No.80 of 2011 is pending, for claiming appropriate relief against the respondents. As a sequel, WPMP.No.40614 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 13th December, 2011 LUR