IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.8088 of 2000 Between: Yala Salamma, W/o.Balaramaiah, R/o.Peruru Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. … Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor District and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.8088 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 to 6 in trying to encroach and take possession of the petitioner’s private road and way situate in Survey No.447/B-1 comprised in an extent of Ac.0.77 cents the road having a width of 12 feet and length for an extent of 50 feet in the village accounts of Peruru, without following the procedure under and Land Acquisition Act, as arbitrary in nature being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and further declare that attempts made by the respondents 3 to 6 on 30.04.2000 at about 10.30 a.m., as illegal and void. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is an illiterate agriculturist owning land to an extent of 0.77 cents in Survey No.447/B1, situated in the village accounts of Peruru, which are private patta lands. For the purpose of transporting her agricultural produce and also for the purpose of movement of her cattle, she laid down a small road and way in her own lands, at about 25 years ago, to reach the main road leading to Tirupati. The said road width is 12 feet and it has a length of 500 feet approximately covered in an extent of Ac.0.09 cents. While that being so, the respondents 5 and 6, who are the leaders of Harijans residing at the fag end of village, who own their patta houses near the road leading to the main road from Peruru to Tirupati, made several attempt to encroach into the private way and road laid by the petitioner in Survey No.447/B1. In this connection, she made representation to the respondents 2 to 4 and the 4th respondent sent a letter to the 2nd respondent vide L.Dis.No.A1/1607/1999, dated 17.08.1999 stating that the said land has not been acquired by the 4th respondent for formation of road or for any other purpose. She again made another representation to the 1st respondent stating that the respondents 5 and 6 are threatening her that the road laid by her in her private land will be used by public and the Government is acquiring. Based on the said representation, the 1st respondent directed the 4th respondent to take necessary action as per the Land Acquisition Rules. It is further submitted that in spite of there being no Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 to 4, respondents 5 and 6, on 24.04.2000, got fully drunken proclaimed that her private pathway is required for Janmabhoomi programme. On 30.04.2000 at about 10.30 a.m., the respondents 5 and 6, along with some revenue officials came to her land and wanted to encroach, for which, the petitioner protested and they left the place. In view of the peculiar circumstances, as the respondents 3 and 4, in collusion with the respondents 5 and 6, want to encroach and convert the pathway of the petitioner into public way and such action is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present writ petition. On behalf of the official and non-official respondents, no counter affidavit has been filed. The learned standing counsel appearing for the official respondents submitted that the 4th respondent, Tirupati Urban Development Authority, already addressed a letter dated 17.08.1999 to the 2nd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, that the land in Survey No.447/B of Peruru Village, Tirupathi (Rural) Mandal measuring an extent of Ac.0.09 cents has not been acquired by the Tirupathi Urban Development Authority, Tirupathi for formation of road or for any other purpose. Therefore, he submitted that the official respondents are not at all interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s private land. He also submitted that if there is any claim against the respondents 5 and 6, who are trying to encroach the land of the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to file civil suit restraining them from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment. This Court on 02.05.2000, while ordering Rule nisi, directed the respondents not to interfere with the rights of the petitioner or dispossess her without following due process of law. Without reiterating the case of the petitioner and in view of the letter dated 17.08.1999, the allegations made by the petitioner against the 4th respondent that the 4th respondent is trying to interfere with land of the petitioner, cannot be accepted. As far as the allegations made against the respondents 5 and 6 that they are trying to interfere with the land of the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to take appropriate action against them, in accordance with law, if so advised. If for any reason, the official respondents are intended to acquire the land of the petitioner, it is made clear that the official respondents shall follow due process of law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel and with the above observation, this writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 22.07.2010. LSK