THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.852 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner states that she purchased a house site admeasuring Ac.0.05 cents carved out of survey No.167-3B of Greamspeta Village, Chittoor Municipality. Another extent of 43 square yards abutting to the North-East portion of Ac.0.05 cents is said to have been purchased by her on 27-03-1991 to make a way to reach the existing street on the eastern side. The 2nd respondent is said to have purchased 70 square yards abutting the southern side of the plot purchased by the petitioner. A compound wall was raised by the petitioner enclosing her site. The officials of Chittoor Municipality, the 1st respondent herein, went to the site and took measurements in October, 2006. The petitioner states that though she made a representation on 24-10-2006 narrating the manner in which she acquired the property, the 1st respondent had demolished the part of the compound wall on 03-01- 2007. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent. Even according to the petitioner, the 1st respondent has already demolished the compound wall. While, according to the 1st respondent, the petitioner had constructed compound wall encroaching the road, the petitioner states that the land owned by her is not part of any road. This Court cannot adjudicate such disputed questions of fact. Much would depend upon the lay out that is sanctioned for the area. In case an approved road passes through the property owned by the petitioner, she cannot prevent laying of road nor construct a compound wall covering such area. On the other hand, if the lay out or master plan does not indicate such road, the 1st respondent cannot convert the same into a public property. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to verify the locality, where the petitioner owns a land with reference to the master plan or the sanctioned lay out, as the case may be, and shall not interfere with the property of the petitioner, unless any part of it is shown as road in the master plan or the lay out. Such verification can also be made, in case the petitioner makes an application seeking permission to construct over the site. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 3rd February, 2011 VJL/KDL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.852 of 2007 3rd February, 2011 VJL/KDL