IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.17379 of 2003 Between: Kolikipam Prasada Rao and another. … Petitioners And: The State of A.P., reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri V.N.Praveen for Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Panchayat Raj for R1 & R.2. Sri M.Sudhir for Mrs.Anjanadevi Satyanarayana. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to form a road through the petitioners’ site admeasuring Ac.0.18 cents comprised in R.S.Nos.325/9 and 325/10 of Dharmajigudem village, Lingapalem Mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri V.N.Praveen, learned counsel appearing for Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners; AGP for Panchayat Raj for Respondents 1 and 2; and Sri M.Sudhir, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Anjanadevi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for respondent No.3. In the affidavit filed by the petitioners it is stated that they are the owners of the above mentioned property; that there is an existing Gram Panchayat road leading to Kattimadigagudem, which is a part of Dharmajigudem village; and that due to political rivalry respondent No.3 attempted to form a sub-road through the petitioners’ land. It is further stated that on coming to know about the same, the petitioners caused legal notice, dated 1-9-2002, issued to respondent No.3 calling upon it to refrain from laying a road without acquiring the land. It is further averred that in the second week of August, 2003 respondent No.3 repeatedly visited the petitioners’ site along with the Surveyor and made markings in it for the purpose of formation of a road through it. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said action of respondent No.3, without acquiring their land, is unconstitutional. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. In support of their plea that they are the owners of the above mentioned property, the petitioners have filed a copy of sale deed dated 30-3-2001. The petitioners also filed a copy of legal notice, dated 1-9- 2002, issued to respondent No.3. As the averments in the affidavit have not been controverted and the material filed by the petitioner is not disputed, it is reasonable to presume that the petitioners are the owners of the land in question, in which respondent No.3 proposed to lay a road. It is not permissible in Law for respondent No.3 to deprive the petitioners of their property without either obtaining their consent or acquiring the same under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.3 is restrained from utilizing the land of the petitioners without following due process of law. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:28-1-2010 MNR