IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20473 of 2010 Between: Garikapati Hari Prasad, S/o. Venkata Satyanarayana, Hindu, 38 years, Doctor/practicing, C/o.Sri Sukanya Polyclinic, Opp: SBI Bank, Mylavaram, Krishna Dist., and another … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and three others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent-Secretary, Mylavaram Grampanchayat, Mylavaram, Krishna District, in not considering the representation of the petitioners dated 22-01-2009 and telegram notice dated 31-07-2010 for initiating action against respondents 3 and 4 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claim to be the owners of a building constructed on 494 sq. yards of land in R.S.No.146/1 of Mylavaram, Mylavaram Grampanchayat, Krishna District, which is adjoining the building of respondents 3 and 4. It is the case of the petitioners that respondents 3 and 4 have constructed the said building without obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat. It is the grievance of the petitioners that in between their building and that of respondents 3 and 4, there is a public road, which enables the vehicles to get into their hospital and respondents 3 and 4 are constructing steps, without obtaining permission from the Grampanchayat, by encroaching on the public road. The second respondent, Secretary, Mylavaram Gram Panchayat, Krishna District, has filed a detailed counter-affidavit. The allegation of the petitioner that the fourth respondent has constructed a building without permission has been specifically denied in the counter- affidavit. It is stated that the building was constructed long back by the father of the third respondent by obtaining permission; however the third and fourth respondents applied for permission for construction of first floor over the existing building for which technical advice was sought for, from the Town Planning Department and the same is awaited. It is categorically stated that no constructions are being made by the third and fourth respondents on the first floor. With regard to the construction of steps on the road in between the building of the petitioners and that of respondents 3 and 4, it is stated that he road portion itself is a private property and is not a public road. From the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the counter-affidavit filed by the Gram Panchayat, it appears, the dispute is purely of a civil nature. Although it is the case of the petitioners that respondents 3 and 4 are constructing steps on the public road, it is categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that the said road is not a public road and it is a private property. It is also averred in the counter- affidavit that the father of the third respondent had obtained permission and constructed the building long back and though respondents 3 and 4 have applied for permission for construction of first floor, as on today, they have not raised any structures. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, no relief, as sought, can be granted in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent civil court for redressal of their grievance. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) August 30, 2010 MRR