THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.25103 of 2002 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the respondents. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondents are trying to lay a road across the land belonging to him situated in Survey No.2/8 of Nedunuru Pedapalem Village, Inavalli Mandal, East Godavari District and highhandedly removing the coconut trees existing thereon, without following due process of law. This Court, while issuing Rule nisi, on 20.12.2002 directed the respondents not to interfere with the ownership and possession of the petitioner in respect of the subject land. Subsequently, the matter came up for consideration on 06.04.2010 and as no counter affidavit has been filed, this Court granted one week’s time to the respondents to file counter. In spite of the same, as the respondents have not filed any counter, on 13.04.2010 this Court directed respondent Nos.1 to 3 to appear in-person today. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are present in-person and filed counter in the matter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated in the counter that the work, namely, providing BT to the road from ZP road to Chinnamvaripeta of Irusumanda, was sanctioned under Pradan Mantri Gramina Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) Phase II Program estimated at Rs.15 lakh. That the said work was entrusted to one K.V.Rama Krishna Rao of Narsapuram, who started the work duly marking and clearing the jungle and trees, which are in the road way portion strictly as per the marking. At that stage, the petitioner made a representation before the Executive Engineer, Amalapuram on 15.12.2002 stating that it is his property and pursuant to the same, the work was stopped and the Mandal Surveyor was requested to conduct a detailed enquiry. That as per the report, which is enclosed to the counter, the part of the land, where the road is proposed to be laid, is poramboke. It is also stated that the Mandal Surveyor, after conducting enquiry, submitted a report, as per which, in the earmarked road margin, there are only four coconut trees, that too, in the Government land and that the respondents have not removed sixteen tress, as alleged by the petitioner. In view of the statement made by the respondents in the counter that pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner, they have stopped the work, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no further orders are necessary in the writ petition. But, however, the learned counsel sought a direction to the respondents to follow due process of law, if they want to lay the road across the land of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall follow due process of law, if they propose to lay the road across the land of the petitioner. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:19.04.2010 VGB