IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 173 of 2008 Between: Chillam Cherla Sudhakar Rao S/o Venkateswarlu Yerragondapalem, Village and mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Engineer, R&B Markapur Division, Markapur, Prakasam District. 2 The Executive Engineer R&B Markapur Division, Markapur, Prakasam 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 of Mandamus, or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from petitioner building bearing D. No. 2-198 in S. No. 54/1 of Yerragondapalem Village, Prakasam District by demolishing the same or any portion there of with out following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principal of natural justice and grant such other or further relief as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.V.L.MURHTY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner apprehending that the respondents are going to dispossess him from the land and building bearing door No.2-198 in S.No.54/1 of Yerragondapalem Village, Prakasam District without following due process of law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Roads and Building and at their request the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased an extent of 57 square yards of land in S.No.54/1 under a registered sale deed and after obtaining permission from the gram panchayat, he constructed a building as per plan. While so, he was informed by the respondents that a portion of his building would be demolished for the purpose of road widening and, therefore, he made a representation to the authorities. The petitioner apprehends that the authorities, without considering his representation would dispossess him from the building without following due process of law. This Court on 4.1.2008 while ordering notice before admission, directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession and structures over the subject matter of property for a period of six weeks. Thereafter, the interim order was not extended and none appeared for the petitioner and a vacate stay petition is filed by the respondents. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents inter alia stating that as per revenue records, Sy.No.54/1 has been declared as government poramboke land, which is a road margin demarcated for the purpose of road leading from Macherla – Srisailam with a width of 45 meters. It is also stated that though the actual road width is 45 meters, the road is passing through only 15 to 20 meters due to the encroachments and, therefore, for the purpose of maintaining the original width of the road, the department is removing the encroachments. It is further stated that to remove the encroachments, a meeting was convened by the Mandal Revenue Officer along with the Revenue Divisional Officer, local MLA and the encroachers and the encroachers have agreed to remove the encroachments within three weeks and basing on the consent given by them only markings have been made and accordingly the demolitions were done. It is averred that the petitioner is also one among those who agreed to remove the encroachments. In view of the above counter averments, I see no reason to continue the interim order granted by this court on 4.1.2008 and stall the road widening programme particularly in view of the averment made in the counter that the land occupied by the petitioner is a government poramboke. Further, the petitioner has not produced before this Court any material controverting the allegations made against him in the counter affidavit. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.16.7.2008 Msv ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Divisional Engineer, R&B Markapur Division, Markapur, Prakasam District. 2 The Executive Engineer R&B Markapur Division, Markapur, Prakasam District. 3 2CCs to GP for Roads & Building, High Court of A.P. Hyd (OUT) 4 2CD copies