( 1 ) THE petitioner is statedly the owner of agricultural land admeasuring acs. 0. 22 guntas in Survey No. 26 of chandanagar Village of Serilingampally mandal in Ranga Reddy District. She purchased the said property from V. C. Veeraiah and his three sons under registered sale deed, dated 28. 1. 1998 and rectification deed dated 21. 11. 2000. According to the petitioner, the main approach road to the said land is through Survey No. 27, which is a Government land and there is a 40 feet wide road formed through Government land in Survey No. 27. On North, East and West sides of the petitioner s property, private lands are situated and therefore the alleged road in Survey No. 27 is the only approach providing ingress and egress to the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that there was such road for more than fifty years as per the revenue records showing it as public road/public street maintained by Serilingampally Municipality, the third respondent herein.

( 2 ) THE petitioner further alleges that after she purchased the property, chandanagar Police Station was constructed in Survey No. 27 keeping in tact the public road leading to her land. On 30. 5. 2002 between the southern side of her land in survey No. 26 and Government land in survey No. 27, the second respondent attempted to construct a boundary wall. The petitioner approached the first respondent by making a representation, who after considering the grievance allegedly advised the authority not to proceed with the work. She alleges that on 25. 11. 2005, the second respondent made an attempt to construct boundary wall on public road with an intention to permanently close the public road. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted representation on 25. 11. 2005 to the respondents requesting them to inspect the public road and take necessary action, in vain. The petitioner contends that the road in Survey No. 27 is a public street within the meaning of Section 2 (31) of A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (the Act, for brevity), which is meant for use by all persons and the Government is not entitled to obstruct the same. The second respondent has no power or authority to make any construction on the road causing inconvenience to innocent public. The second respondent already constructed a room measuring 12 x 12 feet causing partial obstruction on the main approach road and is making hectic effort to construct boundary wall to permanently close the road. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 25. 11. 2005, and allowing the second respondent to permanently close the public road in Survey No. 27 of serilingampalli Municipality as illegal, arbitrary and unjust.

( 3 ) WHEN the matter was heard on 29. 11. 2005, the learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities sought time for getting instructions in the matter. Having regard to the allegations made by the petitioner that the second respondent is constructing a compound wall allegedly on the road, this court ordered status quo. On 8. 12. 2005, the learned Government Pleader for Home appeared and submitted that the land was allotted to the police station for construction of police station and that there is no road in the area. Both the Counsel were directed to file counter-affidavits. Accordingly, the fourth respondent filed counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 4, and respondents 2 and 3 filed separate counter-affidavits denying various allegations. A brief reference to these pleadings is necessary to appreciate the controversy in the matter.

( 4 ) THE Mandal Revenue Officer - fourth respondent herein; who filed counter- affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and. 4, states that he has inspected the lands in Survey Nos. 26 and 27, on 29. 12. 2005 and found that there is no road existing which passes through Survey no. 27 and reaches the petitioner s land, that m/s. J. Na

Click Here to Read the rest of this document