THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.25624 OF 2009 Dated 27th July, 2010 Between: Bikkina Phanindra …Petitioner And The District Collector and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy Counsel for respondents 1 and 3: None appeared Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri M.V.Raja Raam The Court made the following ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in laying fence in the existing road of Layout Plan No.226/1987 of Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to encroach towards north to west side portion of the existing 40 feet road. I have heard Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M.V.Raja Raam, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.2. The petitioner averred that in the year 1987, Thimmapuram Gram Panchayat has applied for layout plan for R.S.No.109 (P) situated at Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada Taluk covering the house plots; that the Director of Town and Country Planning has accorded permission and issued a layout plan in L.P.No. 226/1987 in respect of the said survey number and that several transactions had taken place in the said layout. It is the further case of the petitioner that some of the purchasers have constructed houses and most plots were kept vacant as no constructions were made. The petitioner averred that on 04.04.2005, he purchased 336 square yards from one Sanipini Bheemeswara Rao, S/o Jogi Raju, for a valid consideration and the said plot was registered. The petitioner also sought to trace the title of his vendor by referring to the sale deed executed in his favour. The petitioner alleged that on 02.11.2009; the workers employed by respondent No.2 were erecting fence upon the 40 feet wide road and that when the petitioner approached respondent No.2 Office, he was informed that the District Collector has accorded them the permission to occupy the said road. In support of his plea that there is an existing 40 feet road, the petitioner filed a copy of the layout plan approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2, wherein, it is, inter alia, stated that in the year 1977, the Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, has established a Post Graduate Extension Centre at Kakinada for the purpose of conducting P.G. Courses; that the said Centre was originally in a private building in Kakinada city and that subsequently, the Endowments Department has donated Ac.40.30 cents of land in Thimmapuram Village for the purpose of establishment of the P.G. Centre, which was named after M.S.N Charities, Kakinada. That as the said donated land was not sufficient, it has acquired Ac.6.12 cents of land belonging to Sri Bheemeswara Swamy Temple, Kakinada, and that the said land situated in Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada Rural Area is by the side of Government poramboke land covered by Survey Nos.113; 110 and 107 of Thimmapuram Village. It is further stated that by the time, the P.G. Centre was shifted from the private building to the lands allotted to respondent No.2, some Government poramboke lands were under encroachment by private persons and that some portions of the land belonging to respondent No.2 were also under their encroachment and therefore, in order to protect their land, the Andhra University obtained permission from the District Administration for raising a fence around its land and also the poramboke land belonging to the Government covered by Survey Nos.113 and 110. With reference to the allegations made by the petitioner that he found fencing in such a way as to enclose the existing 40 feet road, it is stated that respondent No.2 is erecting fence up to the existing 40 feet road and that they have taken up the erection/construction of fencing work within their premises for which, the petitioner has no right to object. At the hearing, Sri M.V.Raja Raam, learned Standing Counsel has reiterated the above stand taken in the counter-affidavit of respondent No.2 and submitted that his client is not proposing to close the existing 40 feet road and that the proposed fencing is confined only to the abovementioned lands of the University and the Government poramboke lands excluding the road. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if that be the case, the petitioner can have no grievance. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that respondent No.2 shall not close the existing 40 feet road while erecting the fencing around the lands in its occupation. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WVMP No.293 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 27th July, 2010 vrn