At, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD
For the Petitioner: S. Mohammed Ismail, Advocate. For the Respondents: G.P. for Panchayat Raj Rural Development, G.P. for Revenue.
1. This is a writ of Prohibition filed to prohibit the respondents 3 to 7 making any construction in Survey No 268 of Prabhalaveedu Village B Kodur Mandal YSR Kadapa District, which is causing hindrance to the petitioner’s ingress and aggress to his land in Survey No 259 in an extent of 1.14 acres of the said village.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents have proposed to construct a village secretariat/Grama Sachivalayam beside over head storage tank. The grievance of the petitioner is that if the said proposed construction is made in the adjacent land of the petitioner, his ingress and aggress to his land would be affected. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondents did not obtain any prior permission for construction of Village Secretariat/Grama Sachivalayam beside over head water storage tank from the concerned authorities. The respondents have also not considered the objections of the adjacent land owners and the grievance of the petitioners. The petitioner has filed his pattadar passbooks and cist receipts to prove his possession and enjoyment of the land and also some photographs showing the excavation of earth for the proposed construction.3. There are questions of facts to be decided in this writ petition.4. Admittedly the writ petition is filed against the revenue officials on the ground that the revenue officials more particularly respondents 3 to 7 have proposed construction of Village Secretariat/Grama Sachivalayam.5. In fact, the petitioner ought to have made a representation to the revenue department expressing his difficulty. The petitioner has also got civil remedy available to him when the Government is interfering with his rights in the property.6. Learned Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of R-6 and R-7, and submits that, there is no right of way for ingress and aggress to reach the schedule property in Sy No.268 of the petitioner. However, in case, if the petitioner submits his representation, it would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed by the concerned authorities.7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner may submit a representation to the Government for consideration of his ingress and aggress to his property, if there is any such way existing earlier, and the respondents shall consider the same and pass ap
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
propriate orders in accordance with law within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.8. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed.