THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITON Nos.9382 & 10862 of 2010 Date:31.08.2010 Between: Smt.Chitekela Kantham and another. ……..Petitioners. And The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada and others. ……Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITON Nos.9382 & 10862 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: In these two petitions, the action of the respondents in formation of road from K.O.Mallavaram to Jangalapalem and Bagarayyapeta Villages with MGNREGS funds over the petitioners’ lands in Survey Nos.57/2, 61/3, 82/5, 57/7 and 127 of K.O.Mallavaram Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District is assailed. Rule nisi came to be ordered on 23.5.2009 in W.P.No.9382 of 2010 and on 5.5.2010 in W.P.No.10862 of 2010. An interim order also came to be passed on the respective dates in the writ petitions. The respondent in W.P.No.10862 of 2010 filed counter and moved WVMP No.3988 of 2010. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, both the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Head learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents are contemplating to lay the road on the lands owned by them without following due process of law. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Panchyat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the respondents submits that the road is not being laid on the lands owned by the petitioners and therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Learned Government Pleader refers the Para No.2 of the counter affidavit in W.P.No.10862 of 2010, which reads as hereunder:- “In reply to paras 2 to 4 of the affidavit, it is submitted that it is absolutely incorrect to say that the proposed road is sought to be laid in the private lands of the petitioners. The proposed road is sought to be laid in the government lands only as identified by the Tahsildar, Tuni vide his survey report issued on 29/06/2010. The petitioners’ lands not at all required for laying the proposed road under NREGS Scheme. In such an event the question of acquiring the lands of the petitioners does not arise.” Since the respondents have specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the road is being not laid on the lands owned by the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to follow the due process of law in the event of the lands owned by the petitioners are required for formation of the road. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:31.8.2010 mrb