THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6836 of 2010 March 26, 2010 Between: Kola Abraham, S/o.Venkataiah … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Prakasam District at Ongole And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6836 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner is resident of Kanigiri; a small town in Prakasam District. Out of total extent of Acs.4.47 comprised in survey No.434, petitioner allegedly purchased 32 Ankanams from D.Kataiah under registered sale deed. The land adjacent to petitioner’s land – according to petitioner; was purchased by Smt.Erraguntla Santha Rathnam and Kotepolgu Thima Palas. They raised houses and residing there. On 20.12.1991, they along with petitioner entered into an understanding. As per the understanding, they agreed to leave eastern side as pathway to Gram Panchayat raod. They intimated the same to third respondent. It is alleged that fourth respondent raised a construction leaving the way towards eastern pathway left by the petitioner against the objections of petitioner and others. They gave a complaint to third respondent on 17.10.2009, in vain. They approached the first respondent for redressal. They alleged that first respondent forwarded the same to the District Panchayat Officer for necessary action. Alleging that no action has been taken and the orders of first respondent are not implemented by second respondent, they filed instant writ petition seeking writ of Mandamus. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. This writ petition is wholly misconceived. It is well settled that office notings in departmental files do not create any rights and such notings cannot be enforced in a Court of Law (see Puranjit Singh v Union Territory of Chandigarh[1]). There is no communication as such by the District Collector directing second respondent to conduct enquiry into the matter. Therefore, the remedy of petitioner is to approach the second respondent. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) March 26, 2010 YS [1] AIR 1994 SC 2737