THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.26808 of 2008 ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed to declare the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in seeking to remove the coconut trees said to have been raised by the petitioner on the road side of Amalapuram-Bobbarlanka Road at KM 36/8 to 37/6, as illegal and consequently to direct the said respondents not to interfere with his right to enjoy the usufruct. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of his representation, the 4th Respondent granted him permission to plant coconut trees on the road margins maintained by the R & B Department. Accordingly, an agreement dated 08-10-1976 was executed by the State in favour of the petitioner granting leasehold rights to plant coconut trees on the road margin of Amalapuram-Bobbarlanka road KMs.36/8 to 37/6. The said agreement inter alia provides that within six months, the petitioner should plant in such places as the Executive Engineer (R & B), Kakinada might approve from time to time and the plantation should be at a minimum distance apart of 8 meters and so as not to interfere with the passing along the road by the inspecting officers and that no tree should be planted within 100 feet of any masonry work connected with the said road. It also provides that all the trees so planted shall be the property of the Government and that the petitioner should cultivate and maintain such trees so as to bring the same into bearing at the usual period and from the date of any tree commencing to bear fruit, the licencee should pay tree tax of Rs.5/- per tree in the month of February each year and Re.1/- per tree from the date of plantation till the date of fruit bearing. The said agreement does not specify period of lease, but it has provided that the lease would be cancelled in the event of breach of any of the provisions of the agreement and such cancellation should be made by the Executive Engineer, R & B Department after a notice in writing to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the said agreement the petitioner planted trees on the right side of the road and he has been paying tax as per the agreement regularly without any default. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that the agreement is still in force, the respondents 1 to 3 started interfering with his right to possess and enjoy the usufruct. The petitioner has therefore filed this Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief. The 2nd Respondent-Executive Engineer, Godavari Central Division, Dhavaleswarama, East Godavari District has filed a counter. It is stated that the trees in respect of which the petitioner has set up claim do not fall in the road margin. The petitioner has encroached canal bund maintained by the Irrigation Department within the limits of Ravulapalem Gram Panchayat. The said canal bund is the absolute property of the Irrigation Department and the R & B Department has no right to lease out the said property. It is therefore contended that the lease agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 4th respondent is invalid and unenforceable against the respondents 1 to 3. The Gram Panchayat has filed a counter-affidavit taking the same stand as that of the 2nd Respondent herein. Indisputably, there is an agreement executed by the R & B Department in favour of the petitioner authorizing him to plant trees on the road margin from 36/8 KM to 37/6 KM on the Amalapuram- Bobbarlanka road. There does not appear to be any dispute in this regard. From a perusal of the counter-affidavits the only dispute appears to be that the petitioner has exceeded the permission granted to him under the agreement and growing trees on the canal bund, which is said to be situated away from the main road. But the petitioner has denied it asserting that the trees have been grown only on the margin of the road. It is true that the petitioner is not entitled to plant or grow trees anywhere beyond the road margin. He is not entitled to grow any trees on the canal bund, which admittedly does not belong to the Roads and Buildings Department. If really the petitioner has resorted to growing trees on the property of the respondents 1 to 3, which fact the petitioner has denied, the respondents 1 to 3 could have put him on notice and got the fact verified by causing an inspection. Without verifying the fact whether the petitioner has in fact planted/grown trees on the canal bund, the respondents could not have comprehended any action against the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions : (i) The respondents 2 to 5 shall cause an inspection in the presence of the petitioner and ascertain whether the petitioner has planted/grown trees on the road side as per the agreement dated 08-10-1976 or whether he has raised the trees on the canal bund; (ii) On such ascertainment, if it is found that the petitioner has planted/grown trees on the canal bund exceeding the road limits, the respondents 2 to 5 are at liberty to take appropriate action after due notice to the petitioner; and (iii) Until a decision is taken, status quo as on today shall be maintained. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 21st March, 2011. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.26808 of 2008 Date : 21-03-2011 Between : Mallidi Venkata Reddy .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Irrigation Department, A.P.Seretariat, Hyderabad and Others .. Respondents