THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.2054 and 3488 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Both these two writ petitions can be disposed of by this Common Order as they arise under common set of facts. 2. Writ Petition No.2054 of 2010 has been instituted by the Seetharampuram Grampanchayat, Seetharampuram village, Agiripalli Mandal, Krishna District seeking directions to the respondents 1 to 3 to implement the directions issued by the Joint Collector of Krishna District on 16.8.2008 immediately, for the purpose of removing the encroachment made by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent in the said writ petition is the petitioner in W.P.No.3488 of 2010. She seeks a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in taking steps to demolish the petitioner’s house alone as contrary to law. 3. The necessity to record the detailed facts has been obviated as a perusal of the averments contained in the counter-affidavit filed in W.P.No.2054 of 2010 by the Tahasildar, Agiripalli Mandal, which would disclose that it is the Assistant Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department who initiated necessary action by writing a letter to the Tahsildar, Agiripalli Mandal that a pucca drain on the road margin is being constructed in Seetharampuram and during the survey of the land it was noticed by him that the hut where from a private hotel is being operated by the 4th respondent in the said writ petition, is constructed in the road margin which is falling in line of the alignment of the pucca drain. It is further averred that when requested to remove the said encroachments of the road margin, the encroacher has rejected to remove the said encroachments. In those set of circumstances, the Assistant Engineer requested the Tahsildar to take necessary action. The Mandal Surveyor has taken up the survey of the Roads and Buildings margin in R.S.No.737 of the village. Based upon the findings, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.3488 of 2010 was found to have encroached upon the road margin. Accordingly, a notice was served by way of an affixer on the premises in terms of Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short, the Act). At that stage, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.3488 of 2010 has filed W.P.No.5079 of 2008. An order dated 1.5.2008 was passed by this Court directing the said petitioner to file an appeal under Section 10 of the Act within a period of four weeks. Thereupon, the Joint Collector of Krishna District entertained the appeal of the petitioner in W.P.No.3488 of 2010, but dismissed the same by his order dated 16.8.2008. The Joint Collector has specifically directed that the land purchased by the said petitioner be demarcated, so that the road margin can be clearly got identified and the petitioner can be evicted there from. 4. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner in W.P.No.3488 of 2010 has purchased 127 sq. yards of land in R.S.No.683/18 whereas the hut was constructed in the road margin lying in S.No.737, which land was classified in the revenue record as a road Poromboke, over which the title vests with the Government. Therefore, the Joint Collector has asked for the survey to be undertaken, so as to identify the road margin occupied by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.3488 of 2010. 5. In view of all these averments, it is only appropriate that the Tahsildar with the assistance of the Mandal Survey Officer immediately demarcate the extent of road margin allegedly occupied by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.3488 of 2010 in the presence of any of the two individual residents of Seetharampuram Gram Panchayat. The findings of the same may be served on the petitioner in W.P.No.3488 of 2010 on any other adult member of her family. In the event, the findings of the said survey are declined to be received the same may be served by way of affixture at the premises where the hut is said to have been constructed by the petitioner in W.P.No.3488 of 2010. In case, the findings are adverse to the petitioners in W.P.No.3488 of 2010, 15 days time may be provided to her for voluntary removing from the encroached portion of the road margin. In the event of any failure only, appropriate action for removal of such encroachment be resorted, but not otherwise. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.3488 of 2010 has clearly pointed out that there are several others in the village who have also encroached the road margin and that the Revenue authorities as well as the Roads and Buildings Departments are turning neutral towards them and the writ petitioner in W.P.No.2054 of 2010 is solitarily soft towards them as he is the Sarpanch of the village. I hope and trust that the Tahisldar and Assistant Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department would ensure that no other person of the village will encroach upon R & B road margin and in case any such encroachments have been noticed, prompt and immediate action may also be taken against all such encroachers. 7. With these directions, both these two Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J Date:23.12.2011. Gk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.2054 and 3488 of 2010 Date:23.12.2011 Gk.