IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.24288 of 2009 Between: Soma Vishnu Murthy and another ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and two others ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This court ordered notice before admission on 17-11-2009 and granted an order of status-quo for a limited period. 2. Counter-affidavit is filed by the third respondent. Heard the counsel. 3. The writ petition is filed praying for the relief of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in widening the roads by encroaching into the petitioners agricultural land of an extent of about 750 Sq. yards out of land in Survey Nos.8, 9, 10 and 15 total admeasuring Ac.5.58 gtc., in Kothapalli village without any notification, without payment of any compensation and without initiating any action under the provisions of Section 59 of the Panchayat Raj Act,1994, or under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or by private negotiations as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice etc., and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their land in Survey Nos.8, 9, 10 and 15 total admeasuring Ac.5.58 gts., in Kothapalli village for the purpose of the road widening without any notification, without payment of any compensation and without initiating any action under the provisions of Section 59 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, or under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or by private negotiations and pass such other suitable orders. 4. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of agricultural land in Survey Nos.8, 9, 10 and 15 total admeasuring Ac.5-58 gts., in Kothapalli village. The third respondent taken up the job of road widening of main road leading to their village. The third respondent had demarcated an extent of about 750 Sq. Yards i.e., at 6 feet width and 1100 feet length of his lands. 5. Further it is stated that they are not opposing the road widening activity. The grievance of the petitioners is (i) no compensation was paid to the petitioners for such an acquisition, rendering the acquisition as illegal and arbitrary and; (ii) that due process of law was not initiated by the respondents, either by Private negotiations or under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in as much as Section 9 of the AP Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 requires that any Gram Panchayat may acquire immovable property by procedure contemplated under Land Acquisition Act only. 6. It is also stated that no notification under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. No proposals were made for private negotiations. No notice was served on him at all in respect of the acquisition. However, the third respondent and his men highhandedly entered into his land and demarcated stating that he had to cooperate for the development of village and give away the land free of cost. The third respondent without following due process is trying to project him as a person not cooperating for the village development by not giving his land free of cost. 7. Sections 146 and 147 of the HMC Act also had been referred to and several further averments also had been made in para Nos.7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 8. In the counter-affidavit filed it is stated that the writ petition is misconceived. The Zilla Parishad, Ranga Reddy District had taken up the road repairs of its villages under the scheme of “Pradana Manthri Grameena Sadak Yojana”, which is the scheme of the Central Government. The object of the scheme is to provide better amenities to the villages particularly by providing roads, drinking water and sanitation. The Kothapalli Gram Panchayat is the village with a population of about 3,000. Most of the villagers are agriculture labour. This village is adjacent to Yacharam Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. To go to this village there is an existing road of Zilla Parishad with a width of 33 feet, which was double metal road. The present condition of the road is in a bad shape. In view of the same the Gram Panchayat represented the Zilla Parishad to sanction the black top road to this Gram Panchayat. The Zilla Parishad of Ranga Reddy District was pleased and sanctioned the work and executed the same two years back. However, while executing the work because of lack of funds about one kilometer from Venkateswara temple to village was not completed. In view of the representations of the villagers the Zilla Parishad was once again sanctioned under the scheme of ‘Pradana Manthri Grameena Sadak Yojana’ under which Rs.15,82,000/-. The Gram Panchayat had no role to play in this. The work identified and being executed by the Zilla Parishad in the existing road by laying two layers with metal and black top on the surface of the road. The question of encroaching upon the petitioners land or the others land does not arise because the black top road is laying on the existing road, it is not a road widening as stated by the petitioners. 9. Further it is stated that while executing the repair work or while laying the black top road it is necessary to use the adjacent lands for the purpose of keeping the vehicles or taking out the mud for road margins. The inconvenience to the petitioners land or the adjacent lands is only temporary but not for permanent acquisition for the road purpose. However, if there is any necessity for encroachment the Government/Zilla Parishad will follow the procedure for acquiring the land. This is not the case of the road widening or laying new road. It is only laying black top on the existing road. The petitioner is under the wrong impression that the Gram Panchayat is laying the road in the petitioners land is baseless, false and fabricated for the purpose of the writ petition. In fact, most of the villagers have come forward for donating the land for the purpose of the road because it is a developmental programme of the village. The petitioner herein had not visualized the scheme/development programme of the village. 10. No doubt, non-joinder of necessary parties also had been taken as a ground in para No.6 of the counter-affidavit. In the light of the specific stand taken in para No.5 of the counter-affidavit, in particular, it may be true that for temporary purpose some portion of the land might have been used by the respondents. However, it is needless to say that the respondents not to disturb the possession of the petitioners relating to their lands unless and until the procedure is followed. 11. With the above clarification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J December 2, 2009. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.24288 of 2009 December 2, 2009.