THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26248 of 2009 Dated 28th November, 2011 Between: Aguru Ramulu …Petitioner And The District Collector, Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 3: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri G.Rama Gopal The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a mandamus to set aside proceedings bearing Lr.No.124/09, dated 09.10.2009, of respondent No.3. The petitioner is an assignee of land admeasuring Acs.3.00 in Survey Nos.30/part and 80/part of Gottipalli Village, Merakamudidam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. He averred that he has raised a mango garden over the said land and that the same is 30 years old. He felt aggrieved by the impugned communication, whereby respondent No.3 has directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector and the Mandal Surveyor to lay a road through part of his land in Survey No.80/1. The grievance of the petitioner is that so long as the assignment made in his favour subsists, laying of a road without even giving him the opportunity to explain his case constitutes invasion of his legal rights over the assigned land. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that D-form patta was issued in favour of the petitioner with the condition that there will not be any obstruction for easementary rights and that as a part of the land, which was assigned to him, is being used by the ryoths of adjacent ﬁelds for passage even prior to grant of D-form patta, the impugned memo was issued setting apart Ac.0.15 cents out of Ac.0.89 cents of land as ‘rastha’, but there is no proposal to lay a road as pleaded by the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned proceedings does not support the above-mentioned plea of respondent No.3. It is categorically directed in the said memo that a road shall be formed over the land in dispute. The questions whether the petitioner has the obligation to provide a road over the land for which he was granted assignment for the purpose of easementary and even if such obligation subsists, whether any such easement of necessity for the neighbouring land owners exists or not are the questions which need to be resolved before a ﬁnal decision for laying road is taken by respondent No.3. Admittedly, no notice is issued to the petitioner before issuing the impugned memo. Unless such a notice is issued and respondent No.3 considers the objections, if any, that may be ﬁled by the petitioner, the decision to lay a road over the assigned land given to the petitioner ought not to have been taken. On the above analysis, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. This order, however, does not preclude respondent No.3 from initiating appropriate action, if he is of the view that there is an easement exists for the neighbouring land owners and that the petitioner is liable to set apart a part of the assigned land. Respondent No.3 shall give a notice to the petitioner and the impleaded respondents and hold an enquiry before taking a ﬁnal decision. Till then, the petitioner’s right to enjoy the assigned land without any interruption shall not be interfered with by the respondents. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34157 of 2009 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th November, 2011 VGB