HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25904 OF 2007 ORDER: Petitioner challenges the action of the respondents in forcibly demolishing the compound wall constructed by him upon his land, in survey No.19/B of Sitharampur Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District and claims compensation of Rs.17 lakhs. Further direction is also sought against the 1st respondent from proceeding with the demolition or laying a road upon it. 2. The petitioner contends that he is the owner of a plot admeasuring 15’ x 420’ in survey number referred to above, and he constructed a compound wall and shed, after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat. His grievance is that the 1st respondent, who has no jurisdiction over the area, has caused demolition of the wall and part of the shed. 3. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations. According to it, no steps were taken for demolition of the wall or other structures. The 2nd respondent was impleaded at a later point of time, since it emerged that the property of the petitioner is within the limits of the Gram Panchayat. 4. Heard Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J. Kanakaiah, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. 5. The wall constructed by the petitioner was demolished. There was some uncertainty as to who, among the Municipal Corporation and the Gram Panchayat, have demolished it. This Court had passed detailed orders on 07-06-2010 and 11-06-2010. In view of the impending controversy, a direction was issued to the District Panchayat Officer to verify the matter, with reference to the validity of the permission accorded to the petitioner and other related matters. 6. The District Pancayat Officer, Karimnagar submitted his report through letter, dated 24-07-2010. A perusal of the report and the documents enclosed to it, discloses that the petitioner accorded permission to himself in his capacity of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. While he is said to be the owner of Ac.3-20 gts., of land in survey No.19/B, he has chosen to obtain permission to construct compound wall covering a strip of land of 15’ x 420’. There is some dispute as to the ownership over the land, upon which the compound wall and shed were constructed. The local residents were of the view that it is a road connecting to Karimnagar Town and Sitharampur village. It is not understandable as to how and why the petitioner wanted to enclose a strip of land of 15’ x 420’, though he is the owner of Acs.3.20 gts., of land. 7. This Court is of the view that the controversy is much more than the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent herein. This is particularly so when the respondents contend that the petitioner covered the existing road. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has to first get his land in Survey No.19/B, demarcated by approaching the authorities of the Survey and Land Records. If it, ultimately, emerges that the piece of land of 15’ x 420’, around which compound wall was constructed, is also part of the land in survey No.19/B, it shall be open to him to initiate proceedings before the Civil Court, claiming damages against the 1st respondent or the 2nd respondent, as the case may be. 6. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J January 19, 2011. KTL