HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12166 of 2008 Date : 19.08.2011 Between : Gorla Veera Raju & others. …..Petitioners And The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, Kakinada & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12166 of 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is filed with the prayer which reads as under : “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in laying the link road Chintrada to Chandrammapalem from Satyamma temple to Pavara village in the petitioners lands with an extent of 12-00 in S.No.274/3, 274/2, 274/1 and Ac.2-01 cents in S.No.275, 139, an extent of Ac.2-50 cents in S.No.139 and 275 an extent of Ac.1-54 cents in S.No.145/1, 145/2 as illegal, arbitrary.” In the writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioners that though they are owners of the aforementioned lands, the Grampanchayat is taking steps to construct a road leading from Chitrada to Chandammapalem and from Sattemmatally temple to Pavara village, affecting their lands. It is their grievance that though such road is being constructed through their private patta lands, no steps are being taken to acquire the said lands. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Sub-Division-2, Panchayat Raj Department, Kakinada. While denying the allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition, it is stated in the counter that for taking levels for formation of road, some peg marks were made in the adjacent lands, to locate the actual level and that the said peg marks were removed after taking levels. It is stated that the ryots, who are illiterates, are under the impression that their lands are being used for formation of road. In the counter, it is further stated that the road will be constructed only from the Government poramboke land without affecting the petitioners’ patta lands. From the averments made in the counter affidavit, it appears that this writ petition is filed when peg marks were made in the lands of petitioners, apprehending that the road will be laid through their lands. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the road is not going to be constructed affecting the lands of petitioners, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, placing on record such statement made in the counter affidavit. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th August 2011 ajr