HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21212 of 2010 Date 10.11.2010 Between: Smt D.Balli. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector (Panchayat Raj), Nellore District, Nellore & others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Palle Nageswar Rao Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : None appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : Smt Ch. Veda Vani Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : Sri Appadhara Reddy HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21212 of 2010 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent No.6 has allegedly constructed the compound wall around an existing church over the public road vested in respondent No.5, no steps are being taken by it for removal of the encroachment. At the hearing Sri Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on the letter dated 20.07.2010 addressed by the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Section, Kodavalur to respondent No.4, wherein he has reported that foundation is being dug for raising a compound wall over the government land. No counter affidavits are filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.6, the allegation of the petitioner that he is making attempts to construct a compound wall over the government land in Sy.No.380/A which is allegedly used as a public road is denied. Respondent No.6 has specifically averred that his mother has purchased an extent of Ac.0.88 cents in Sy.No.356/1B in the year 1972 from one Vemireddy Chandrasekhar Reddy and has constructed a church in the said land. It is further stated that respondent No.6 has constructed the compound wall to protect the church property and that he has not encroached any part of the land in Sy.No.380/A as averred by the petitioner. In my opinion, the question whether respondent No.6 has encroached the government land and constructed a compound wall falls in the realm of disputed questions of fact. Respondent No.5 being the custodian of the public property ought to evince interest in the issue raised by the petitioner and take appropriate steps to ascertain whether respondent No.6 has constructed the compound wall over the public property vested in the Gram Panchayat. If necessary it shall cause a survey to be conducted. If it is found that respondent No.6 has encroached the public road in Sy.No.380/A, it shall initiate appropriate steps under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for removal of such encroachment after due notice to respondent No.6. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the main petition, WPMP.No.26990 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:10.11.2010 Usd