IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10876 of 2008 Between: B.Obul Reddy S/o.Obul Reddy @ Obaiah R/o.Bhommireddypalli village, Gopavaram Mandal, Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue officer, Gopavaram Mandal Gopavaram, Kadapa District 2 The Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department Badvel, Kadapa District .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in laying the road in the petitioner land in Sy.no.674/4 and 673/1 of Bhoomireddipalli village in Gopavaram Mandal of Kadapa District even without acquiring the same as per the Land Acquisition Proceedings as illegal, unjust arbitrary, highhanded and against statutory provisions and consequently direct the respondents not to lay the road in the petitioner land in SY.No.674/4 and 673/1 of Bhoomireddipalli vilalge in Gopavaram Mandal of Kadapa District without following the due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of land in survey Nos.674/4 and 673/1 of Bhoomereddipalli Village, Gopavaram Mandal, Kadapa District. His grievance is that the Mandal Revenue Officer, the first respondent herein, had issued proceedings, dated 18.12.2006, recording a finding to the effect that there existed a rastha across the said field covering an area of about one cent. According to him, he had became aware of the said proceedings in the course of O.S.No.63 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel and assailed the same, on several grounds. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. A perusal of the proceedings, dated 18.12.2006, discloses that they came to be issued, in the light of a dispute as to the existence of a rastha. It was observed that a rastha existed for about 40 years and in the recent past, a portion of it was ploughed by the petitioner. The exercise is not traceable to any provision of law. All the same, the first respondent observed that an appeal would lie against the same, obviously to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Inasmuch as the petitioner came to know about the impugned proceedings in the recent past, the period of limitation needs to be extended. The appellate authority would be in a better position to verify the record and arrive at a proper conclusion. Hence, The Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal and the appeal shall be entertained by the concerned authority, if it is presented within four weeks from today. In the meanwhile, the rastha in question shall be operative, but no further improvement shall be made upon it for a period of six weeks. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.22.05.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Note:Furnish C.C. in one week. (B/o) GJ/KDL