THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6213 of 2011 Dated 11th March, 2011 Between: Kanuri Srinivasa Rao and others …Petitioners And The Gram Panchayat, Kovvali rep.by its Secretary, Gram Panchayat Office, Kovvali, West Godavari District …Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu Counsel for respondent: Sri G.Elisha The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in resorting to evict the petitioners from their houses, bearing Nos.5-117, 5-105, 5-106 and 5-96 respectively, constructed around Kanakalamma Tank Bund, Kovvali Village, Dendulur Mandal, West Godavari District, by issuing notice, dated 28.02.2011, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claim to be in occupation of the land, which admittedly does not belong to them, and living thereon by constructing houses. A notice was issued by the respondent on 22.02.2010 calling upon the petitioners to vacate their houses as the Gram Panchayat decided to lay a road sanctioned under NREGS. The petitioners pleaded that they have submitted their representation on 27.02.2010. Obviously not satisfied with the explanation, another notice was issued by the respondent on 07.04.2010, directing the petitioners to vacate the property within two days. Thereafter, the impugned notice was given on 28.02.2011 giving five days’ time to the petitioners for vacating the property. At the hearing, Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the action of the respondent is wholly arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Having considered this submission of the learned counsel and carefully perused the record, I am of the opinion that the petitioners, who are admittedly encroachers of a public property, are not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Under Section 103(2) of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), if any person is in occupation of any land, which is set apart for any public purpose and is vested in or belonging to the Gram Panchayat, the executive authority may, by notice require such person to vacate such land and to remove any building or other construction or anything deposited on it. Even on the petitioners’ own showing, the property does not belong to them. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners, at the hearing, submitted that the property in occupation of his clients does not fall in any of the categories mentioned under Section 58 of the Act, which alone are vested in the respondent, no such plea is raised by the petitioners in the writ petition. At any rate, the respondent, being the custodian of the public property situated within its jurisdiction, whether a formal notification was issued by the Government or not, the petitioners cannot resist its efforts to utilise the said property for a public purpose, namely, for formation of a road. The submission of the learned counsel that prior notices have not been given is without any merit, because even according to the pleadings of the petitioners, earlier notices were issued on 22.02.2010 and 07.04.2010, and the impugned notice is the third in succession. In the face of the petitioners’ admission that they are in occupation of the public property, the need for issuing any further notice is wholly redundant. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.7745 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th March, 2011 VGB