Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(AP) 225

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
P.V. Lav Kumar Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department Secretariat & Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 28907 of 2014
Decided On : 13-06-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:D. Krishna Murthy, Advocate.
For the Respondent: K. Raghuveer, Government Pleader

Point of Law: Even if the land is vested with the Government, it does not mean the villagers lost the right of common usage which they are entitled for protection. As already stated in that case the subject property was a road margin of the public street which was used by the petitioner and others for more than 15 years.

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 19(1)(g) - Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Section 15 - Prescription Act, 1832 - Sections 3 and 4 - Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 26 and 25 - Encroachment - Legal right - Restoration of Cart Track after a long lapse of 16 years of its closure - Respondent requesting to conduct survey of land and demarcate boundaries to existing Cart Track, High School and Junior College. In turn, the 5th respondent directed Mandal Surveyor to conduct survey and submit report regarding status of Cart Track - respondent stating that there was a Cart Track and that a school building was constructed encroaching upon the Cart Track. Thereafter 5th respondent inspected land and submitted report to District Collector / 3rd respondent vide proceedings in Roc. stating that school building and Junior College were constructed encroaching upon existing Cart Track - Initial approval of 2nd respondent to spare 12 feet to restore the Cart Track and later reverting back from his proposal in view of the objection by the students, teachers, parents and School Education Committee will not create any legal right to petitioner, for restoration of Cart Track, inasmuch as, he has no legal right to make any claim. (Para 28)
Finding of the Court:
Municipal Corporation proposed to construct Sulabh complex, the writ petitioners objected on ground that proposed construction was going to narrow the public road to a width of 15 to 20 feet resulting in a bottleneck at the relevant spot. It is in that context a learned single Judge of this Court having agreed with the contention of the petitioners that citizens have right to pass through public road and can make use of every inch of it for ingress and agrees and though public street vests in the Municipal Corporation, it has only the right to manage and maintain same but cannot raise any structures, allowed the writ petition and directed Municipal Corporation to remove the Toilet Complex constructed at the subject spot. As already stated in that case subject property was a road margin of the public street which was used by the petitioner and others for more than 15 years - Approval of 2nd respondent to spare 12 feet to restore ;k Cart Track and later reverting back from his proposal in view of the objection by the students, teachers - Parents and School Education Committee will not create any legal right to petitioner, for restoration of Cart Track, inasmuch as, he has no legal right to make any claim.
Result: Writ petition is dismissed

ORDER :

The petitioner prays for a mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 6 to 8 in implementing the orders of the respondents 2 & 3 in Rc.No.5545/B3/2013 dated 31.07.2014 and Roc.E5/9839/2012 dated 22.07.2014 as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents 6 to 8 to implement the aforesaid orders.

2. The petitioner’s case succinctly is thus:

(a) The petitioner is the resident of Gunjarlapalle Village, Santhipuram Mandal, Chittoor District. He owns land of Ac.1.18 cents in Sy.No.120/2 of 28, Gundisettipalle Village of Santhipuram Mandal. There is a Cart Track existing in Sy.No.120/4 and 120/6 from times immemorial to reach the agricultural lands of the petitioner and others. The said Cart Track is recorded in the Village Map also.

(b) While so, the Government have alienated the land in Sy.No.120/4 and 120/6 in favour of the Zilla Parishad / respondent No.8 for construction of High School and Junior College. The 8th respondent accordingly constructed High School and Junior College in Sy.No.120/4 and 120/6 encroaching upon the existing age old Cart Track. Due to such encroachment now there is no other way to approach the lands of the petitioner and others.

(c) The petitioner submitted an application to 5th respondent on 11.04.2011 requesting to conduct survey of the land in Sy.No.120/4 and 120/6 and demarcate the boundaries to the existing Cart Track, High School and Junior College. In turn, the 5th respondent directed the Mandal Surveyor to conduct survey and submit report regarding the status of the Cart Track. The Mandal Surveyor accordingly conducted survey and submitted report to 5th respondent stating that there was a Cart Track existing in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.120/4 and that a school building was constructed encroaching upon the Cart Track. Thereafter the 5th respondent inspected land and submitted report to the District Collector, Chittoor / 3rd respondent vide proceedings in Roc.A/93/2011 dated 27.04.2011 stating that the school building and Junior College were constructed encroaching upon existing Cart Track. He further stated that the Cart Track can be restored by providing 12 feet width approach road in the land in between the High School building and Junior College building for which the permission of the District Educational Officer, Chittoor / 2nd respondent is required. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent in his letter in L.Dis.E5/4190/11 dated 09.05.2011 instructed 5th respondent to address letter to 2nd respondent seeking permission to provide Cart Track through the land in Sy.No.120/4. Accordingly, the Tahsildar addressed letter to the D.E.O. vide Roc.B/93/2011 dated 09.07.2012 for necessary permission. The 2nd respondent has granted permission to provide Cart Track and addressed letter to the Mandal Educational Officer, Santhipuram Mandal / 7th respondent informing about the grant of permission for providing Cart Track to a width of 12 feet through the land in between the High School building and Junior College building. However, the 7th respondent has not taken any action for providing the Cart Track as per the permission accorded by the 2nd respondent.

(d) That apart, the Sub-Collector / 4th respondent also inspected the site and submitted report to the 3rd respondent vide his office Roc.B1/9516/2012 dated 31.05.2013 requesting the District Collector, Chittoor to direct 2nd respondent and the 5th respondent to take steps to restore the Cart Track. The 3rd respondent vide his office letter Roc.E5/9839/2012 dated 01.07.2013 directed the 2nd respondent to inspect the land and take necessary steps to restore the Cart Track. He also issued a reminder to 2nd respondent to take action in the matter. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent addressed letter to the Head Master, Government High School and 6th respondent to take action in the matter immediately and report. However, no action has been taken so far. The inaction on the part of the respondents 6 to 8 is arbitrary an