IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23664 of 2007 Between: M. Jaganmohan Rao, S/o. Tirumala Rao, R/o. H.No. 8-92, Bayyaram (V&M), Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Khammam. 2 Grampanchayat Bayyaram, Rep. byits Sarpanch, Bayyaram (V&M), 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 to issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent and its staﬀ in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the property bearing H.No. 8-92 with appurtenant open site total admeasuring 600 sq. yards situated at Bayyaram (V&M) Khammam District without issuing anynotice and without providing any opportunity as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Art. 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent and their subordinates not to dispossess the petitioner from the said property, and pass such other or furtyher orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.23664 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner complains that the respondents have laid a road by utilizing an extent of 200 square yards of land abutting his house bearing No.8-92 situated at Bayyaram Village and Mandal of Khammam District. He states that the land of 200 yards is part of the front area of his house and without his consent and without paying any compensation, the respondents laid the road. Reference is made to the exchange of notices. The second respondent ﬁled counter aﬃdavit denying the allegations of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner gave consent for laying road across the land by gifting small extent of 200 yards, on condition that the road is named after his father and accordingly the road was named after Materi Tirumala Rao. Certain objections were also raised as to the entitlement of the petitioner in view of the Regulation 1 of 1970. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondent No.1 and the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2. The respondents do not lay any claim to the land that was utilized for the road. It is categorically stated that the petitioner gave his consent for laying road across the land on condition that the road is named after his father. The petitioner did not ﬁle any reply denying the averments in the counter affidavit. Be that as it may, the road has since been laid and at this length of time it is diﬃcult for this court to grant any relief. The impact of Regulation 1 of 1970 also arises for consideration. Writ petition is not a proper remedy for such disputed question of facts. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 07-11-2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}