IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 993 of 2007 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/11/2007 in WP NO : 24448 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1. D. Satyanarayana Raju, s/o. Vekatraju, Keshavaram Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. 2 D.Venktraju, S/o. Veerabhadriraju, Keshavaram Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Commissioner, Greater Vishakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Thenneti Bhavan, Visakhapatnam. 2 The District Collector, Vishakapatnam District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectorate, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Tahansiktal, Visaka Rural Mandal, Chinagadili, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MR.T.RAJENDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR REVENUE. MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) FOR R The Court made the following : JUDGMENT Per Anil R. Dave, CJ Heard the learned Advocates. In view of the fact that the dispute involved in the writ petition is with regard to encroachment of a public road, and, in the absence of particulars furnished by the appellants-original petitioners, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to entertain the writ petition and for the same reason we are also not inclined to entertain the appeal also. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that in order to know whether there is any encroachment of road by the appellants, it is necessary to get the land of the appellants surveyed. Needless to observe that if the appellants approach the appropriate authority with an application to get their land surveyed, we are sure that the request would be considered and their land would be surveyed so that they could also know about the boundaries of their land. Sri Giridhar, learned Government Pleader has fairly submitted that if such an application is made by the appellants, needful shall be done by the appropriate authority. Subject to the above, the appeal stands dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 24th March, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J vtv