IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 25500 of 2001 Between: 1 Dodda China Basavi Reddy, S/o. China Rami Reddy, Yerrasari Vari Banjara Village, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District. 2 Javvaji Kamala Devi, W/o. Venkateshwara Rao, Yerrasari Vari Banjara Village, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District. 3 Pulagam Anji Reddy, S/o. Madhava Reddy, Rajerla Village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District. 3 The Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Sathupally, Khammam District. 4 The Assistant Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Sathupally, Khammam 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 issue writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents lay/extend Kallurugudem to Chodavaram Road through the lands of the petitioners in Sy.Nos.143//1E-AA, 143/1E-EE adn 143/1E-E of Guduru Revenue Village, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District without initiating land acquisition proceedings as high illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and in total violation of the provisions of land Acquisition Act and Consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR. BADANA.BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.25500 OF 2001 ORDER : The 1st petitioner herein claims to be the owner of Ac.5.39 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.143/1E-EE of Gudur Revenue Village, Khammam District having purchased the same under a Registered Sale Deed, dated 01.10.1985. Similarly, the petitioners 2 and 3 claim to be the owners of different extents of land situated in Sy.No.143/1E-EE and Sy.No.143/1E-E. It is stated that all of them were issued pattadar pass books and their names were also entered in the revenue records and that they have been in possession and enjoyment by cultivating the same. While so, in the year 1998 the Department of Panchayat Raj, Khammam laid a road through the land belonging to the petitioners without initiating any proceedings for acquisition of the land utilized for formation of the road. According to the petitioners, about 15 guntas of land was utilized for formation of road and that apart many Mango trees were cut. The objections raised by the petitioners were ignored and even the subsequent representations made by the petitioners requesting to pay appropriate compensation were not considered. On the other hand, the respondents attempted to take away further land belonging to the petitioners where Mango garden is existing for the purpose of widening of the road that was already laid. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed contending that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. This Court while directing Rule Nisi, by order dated 14.12.2001 directed that the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioners from the land in question except in accordance with law. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the existing road which leads to Kallurguda Village to Chowdavaram Village was proposed to be widened by the Department of Panchayat Raj. However, the plea of the petitioners that Mango trees are coming across the road within the road boundary has been denied. The specific case of the petitioners that they are the owners and possessors of the land in question, having acquired the same under validly executed documents could not be controverted by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. However, a vague plea was taken that the road widening work was taken up in the existing Government land for which boundary stones were already fixed. Be that as it may, since the learned counsel for the petitioner states that by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court on 14.12.2001 as on today there is no interference with the possession of the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the said order making it clear that the respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of their lands as specified in this writ petition without following due process of law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 15.12.2008 gbs