IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:26656 of 2005 Between: K.Rama Rao S/o.Muttaiah R/o.Chintalpudi, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector West Godavari District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer West Godavari District. 4 The Executive Engineer roads and Buidlngs Department Eluru West Godavari District. 5 The Asst.Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department, Chintalapudi, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. 6 Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District rep by its Executive Officer. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.SATYANARAYANA Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS 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 writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to act in accordance with judgment, dated 04.02.1998 in Writ Petition No.23856 of 1997. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that apprehending demolition of the structures of the petitioner over the land in dispute and his dispossession there from, the petitioner and various other residents of Chintalpudi Village, West Godavari District filed Writ Petition No.23856 of 1997 and a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition by order, dated 04.02.1998 inter alia with the direction to the respondents that if the official respondents want to take any action for eviction, dispossession and demolition, they shall issue notice to the occupants calling upon them to show cause as to why proposed action should not be taken; that on receipt of such objections or explanation, the Mandal Revenue Officer or other authorities concerned shall determine the question of encroachment or unauthorized occupation and whether the property in question belongs to the Government or any other local self-Government authority or to the occupants and that in case of demolition of private property, the Mandal Revenue Officer or other authorities concerned shall determine the loss caused to the petitioners therein on the basis of the assessment made by the Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department. Alleging that without following the said procedure, the respondents were seeking to demolish the structures raised by him, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. This Court on 19.12.2005 passed a detailed order wherein it vacated the interim stay granted on 14.12.2005. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that in view of vacation of the said order, the structure was demolished. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer (i/c), Roads and Buildings Department, West Godavari District, it is stated that a meeting was conducted on 06.12.2005 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chintalpudi to discuss about the proposed widening of the road to 66 feet; that on 10.12.2005, at the request of the owners of the buildings, a meeting was conducted in the presence of Sri Ghanta Murali Ramakrishna, MLA, Chintalpudi and after detailed discussions with the public, shop owners, land owners, officials and MLA, the respondents decided to widen the road to the extent of 33 feet on either side from the center of the existing road as the said land lies in Gramakantam and the buildings were constructed without leaving the setback. It is further stated that the district authorities instructed the R&B department to clear off the road by taking necessary steps for demolition of 148 structures and in pursuance of the said decision, all the shop owners including the petitioner shifted the useful material from their shops. It is further stated that there was neither protest nor objection for clearing the roads from building owners including the petitioner. The above averments contained in the counter-affidavit suggest that the owners of the buildings of 148 structures constructed the properties over the Gramakantam land. However, the petitioner asserted that the land does not belong to the Government and that it is a private land. Inasmuch as in the counter-affidavit of the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, it is claimed that in pursuance of the above mentioned judgment of the Division Bench, the entire matter was considered in consultation with different agencies including the owners of the buildings and action was taken, it is not possible for this Court to hold that the order of the Division Bench is not followed. If the petitioner still persists with his claim that the property demolished and taken over by the respondents for the purpose of widening of road belongs to him and not to the Government, the only appropriate remedy for him at this stage is to approach the competent civil Court for declaration of title and if he is able to establish his title before it, he would be entitled to claim appropriate compensation for taking over the said property against the respondents. Leaving the petitioner free to avail the remedy as observed above, the writ petition is disposed of. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 3rd JULY, 2008. kvni