The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of title deeds, court decrees, and reports in determining ownership and legality of road laying, as well as the consideration of the historical existence and use of the road in question.

ORDER :

1) The present Writ Petition came to be filed questioning the action of the Respondents in laying the road through land in Survey No. 104/2 admeasuring Acres 0.25 Cents situated at Uttarakanchi Village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District, without acquiring the same under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as illegal, improper and incorrect.

2) The averments in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, show that the father of the Petitioner purchased land to an extent of Acres 3.49 Cents in Survey No. 104/2 in the year 1979 and after his demise, the Petitioner become the sole and absolute owner of the property and claims to be in physical possession of the same.

3) It is said that, while the Petitioner was residing in Hyderabad, some persons illegally grabbed the land to an extent of Acres 0.10 Cents out of Acres 0.25 cents and, as such, he instituted a Suit for declaration and recovery of possession vide O.S. No. 87 of 2013. Initially, an order of injunction came to be passed.

4) While the matter stood thus, on 30.12.2014, when the Petitioner visited his home town, he was surprised to notice a stone laid on 14.12.2014, for laying a road from Uttarakanchi Village to Sarbavaram Village, through his land. The Petitioner raised objection before the 7th Respondent, who is the contractor, but to no avail. A legal notice was issued to the Respondents restraining them from laying a road through his land, but, however, nothing materialized in-spite of receipt of notice. Hence, the present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking a direction to the Respondents not to lay a road through the land of the Petitioner.

5) This Court vide Order dated 07.01.2015 directed “status-quo” to be maintained. Later on, a Vacate Stay Application came to be filed by Respondent No.5, disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition.

6) It is stated that, the Writ Petitioner did not file his title deeds like, Sale Deed or Partition Deed to prove his title over the alleged property. It is further stated that, the Petitioner herein has intentionally omitted to mention the boundaries of his property, more so, when the total extent of the land is about 3½ acres, while the claim is only Acres 0.25 cents. In-fact, it is urged that, on his own showing the Petitioner stated that the property was grabbed by some unknown persons. It is further stated that, the Respondents herein have not laid any road through the land of the Petitioner and having only upgraded the road by laying a cement concrete road.

7) It is stated that, a road is in existence since last 40 years, which is also used by A.P.S.R.T.C. for plying the buses. It is said that, though, the Respondents have not touched the land of the Petitioner, Contempt Case is filed as if showing the road has been laid through the property of the Petitioner. In-fact, it is urged that upgradation of road was prior to the interim order passed and that the Respondents have not touched any private property. It is further averred in the affidavit that the title of the Petitioner, to the property in dispute, is under adjudication and, as such, the Petitioner cannot claim to be the owner of the property. The Tahsildar, Prathipadu Mandal, submitted a report stating that Survey No. 104/2 is Inam Punja Land. It is further stated that, the Department upgraded the existing road under PMGSY Scheme and the allegation that road came to be laid through the land of the Petitioner, is incorrect and bad in law.

8) The point that arises for consideration is, whether the relief sought for by the Petitioner can be granted in this Writ Petition?

9) Reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner mainly submits that, patttas, adangals and the pattadar passbooks clearly indicate that the Petitioner is the owner of the land and, as such, laying of road through the said land is illegal, improper and incorrect.