HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.6393 of 2011 Date : 28-12-2011 Between: Yogendra Narayan Rai and others .. Petitioners and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri B. Narayana Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Government Pleader for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.5 : Ms. Shanthi Neelam The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in laying the road on the petitioners’ land in Sy.Nos.125 and 131 of Janagon Municipality, Warangal District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claim to be the owners of 868.33 sq. yards of land in the above mentioned survey numbers. They have pleaded that Petitioner No.7 constructed a compound wall covering the land in Sy.Nos.125 and 131, situated behind A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot and that it has also constructed an arch with R.C.C. pillars for providing entrance to the Ekasila High School. The petitioners averred that on 22-1-2011, the officials of respondent No.5 with the help of respondent Nos.3 and 4 highhandedly demolished the arch and that when questioned they replied that they are laying road from Ekasila High School to Venkannakunta of Janagaon town at the request of the residents of Ward No.9 of Jangaon town. This action is questioned in this Writ Petition. The Commissioner of respondent No.5 Municipality filed a counter-affidavit inter alia denying the allegation that petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac.3-37 guntas. It is stated that the petitioners have sold the entire land belonging to them to third parties for residential house plots. It is also averred that petitioner No.7 purchased an extent of 549 sq. yards and 1077.33 sq. yards through a notarized agreement of sale in violation of the laws governing the transfer of property and that it constructed a compound wall along with a huge school building without obtaining the building permission and no objection certificate from the Fire Department. While denying that the arch was demolished highhandedly, it is stated that the demolition was made as the arch was raised without any permission. It is further averred in the counter-affidavit that there is already a 40 ft. municipal road in existence leading from R.T.C. bus depot to Venkannakunta, Dharmakancha and Ambedkar Nagar; that the Janagon Municipality has only made improvements of the existing road and that petitioner No.7 encroached upon the same. It is further stated that the land in front of the land of petitioner No.7 belongs to Gadarla Narsi Reddy and he has given no objection on 19-2-2002 to lay 40 ft. municipal road. It is further stated that even though the road was not shown in the municipal records, petitioner Nos.1 to 5, while selling the land as house plots to various persons, have earmarked 40 ft. road as municipal road. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner No.7, the petitioners asserted that the land is a private land and there is no road in existence. The question which arises for consideration is whether respondent No.5 has laid the road for the first time or it has only made improvements over the existing road ? Admittedly, the property and the road in dispute are situated in an unauthorized layout. This is obviously the reason why the road is not shown in the municipal records. Respondent No.5 has asserted that while selling the plots in unauthorized layout, petitioner Nos.1 to 5 have sold the same by showing 40 ft. road and that the same is being used by the residents of the locality. In support of this averment, respondent No.1 filed copies of some of the sale deeds showing existence of 40 ft. road. In my opinion, this issue being a serious disputed question of fact, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate upon the same in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioners are relegated to the competent Civil Court for declaration of their right to receive compensation. Subject to the liberty given as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP No.7968/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 28-12-2011 AM