IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20733 of 2008 Between: Machireddy Rama Mohan Reddy, S/o. Ramana Reddy, R/o. Varakavipudi Village, T.P. Gudur Mandal, Sri Potti Sreeramulu, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore District, Nellore. 2 Mandal Tahsildar, T.P. Gudur Mandal, Sri Potti Sreeramulu, Nellore District. 3 Varakavipudi Grampanchayat, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Panchayat Secretary, T.P. Gudur Mandal, Sri Potti Sreeramulu, Nellore District. 4 Vellapalem Raja Rami Reddy, S/o. Bodi Reddy, Hindu, R/o. Varakavipudi Village, T.P. Gudur Mandal, Sri Potti Sreeramulu, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, direction, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in removing the illegal encroachment (compound wall) made by the 4th respondent on the public road in Varakavipudi Village is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and contrary to Section 96 of the Act 13 of 1994 and vioaltion of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent No. 1 to 3 to remove the illegal encroachment made by the 4th respondent on public road in Varakavipudi Village forthwith in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.CHANDRAIH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: The petitioner claims to have made a representation to the Varakavipudi Gram Panchayat, Nellore District, alleging that the fourth respondent has constructed the compound wall encroaching part of the lane. He contends that the third respondent is under obligation to remove the encroachment under Section 98 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). His grievance is that no action has been taken on the said representation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. Section 96 of the Act, no doubt, prohibits encroachment on public lanes in a Gram Panchayat. Much, however, would depend upon the exact width of a lane and the manner in which any construction is made by the person owning the property by the side of the lane. The petitioner is not clear as to what exactly is the width of the road where the fourth respondent has constructed the compound wall. In reply to an application made by the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat issued a reply stating that the width of the road is 4.75 meters. Even that is vague and it was mentioned that there are no clear records of the Gram Panchayat indicating the width of the road. Under these circumstances, it cannot straight away be said that the fourth respondent has encroached any public lane. Be that as it may, the third respondent can certainly verify the matter and give a reply to the petitioner. In case, it is found that any encroachment is made, notices are to be issued to the concerned persons. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to furnish further particulars and the third respondent shall inturn issue reply to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:23-10-2008 Note:Furnish copy within one week bo Usd