THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.15707 of 2002 DATED:08.09.2009 Between: Reddywari Narayana Reddy and another .. Petitioners And The District Collector, Anantapur and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.15707 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioners are residents of Venkatagiri Palyam, Hamlet of Gutturu Village of Penukonda Mandal, Anantapur District. They alleged that they are owners of the land admeasuring Acs.8.08 cents in Survey No.86 and Acs.3.75 cents in Survey No.87 of Gutturu Revenue Village. It is their case that the respondents are laying road highhandedly in the land of the petitioners. Therefore, they filed the instant Writ Petition seeking a direction not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners’ land. Third respondent filed counter affidavit along with an application to vacate the stay. The allegation that the respondents are laying the road in the land belonging to the petitioners without any due process is denied. It is further stated that the road was laid only on the existing road. Therefore, there is no necessity to acquire the land of the petitioners. It is also stated that in July 2002, the strengthening of the road was completed under the Food for Work Programme. The Gutturu Village map (Village No.51) is also annexed to the counter affidavit showing the road. This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The map would indicate that the road, which was allegedly laid/strengthened, does not pass through the land in Survey Nos.86 and 87 (allegedly belonging to the petitioners) but on the boarder/boundary of the petitioners land. It only shows that the road was laid by strengthening the existing road. This Court, however, observes that if any part of the land of the petitioners is utilized for laying the road, they would be entitled to compensation, subject to the petitioners producing material that their land has been utilized for laying the road. The writ petition, with the above observation, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 08.09.2009 KH