The court mandates a survey to ascertain property boundaries and encroachments, emphasizing the need for factual clarity before resolving disputes.

1. As all the three writ petitions involve common question of fact, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Heard Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.23302 of 23018 and private respondents in W.P.No.34579 of 2022 and W.P.No.809 of 2023, Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.809 of 2023, Sri Seshadri Gola learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.34579 of 2022 and Sri N.Sri Hari learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat in all the writ petitions.

3. The brief background of the case is necessary before the same can be adjudicated.

4. Five petitioners had filed W.P.No.23302 of 2018. These petitioners claimed ownership of certain residential thatched houses in R.S.No.140-4 of Chinnamuttevi Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District. They traced their title to the said property through the Gift Deed dated 27.04.1964 which was registered as Document No.856 of 1964 and another Gift Deed dated 28.04.1976 which was registered as Document No.604 of 1976. The dispute at present relates to the property of petitioners 1, 4 and 5 in W.P.No.23302 of 2018. The property in the present case is said to be a house site admeasuring 150.5 sq.yards of land. The petitioners, in this writ petition, had contended that the revenue authorities were threatening to lay a road through the land of the petitioners forcibly and the same was not permissible. This Court, by an order dated 06.07.2018 had directed that the Gram Panchayat should not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the land claimed by them.

5. While this writ petition was pending, the petitioners in W.P.No.34579 of 2022 and W.P.No.809 of 2023 had approached this Court with the complaint that the petitioners in W.P.No.23302 of 2018 had encroached into the path adjoining their plots and were undertaking construction of houses in the encroached land. The petitioners in these two writ petitions were aggrieved by the inaction of the official respondents in taking any action against the petitioners in W.P.No.23302 of 2018.

6. The case of the petitioners in W.P.No.23302 of 2018 is that there was a common pathway on the northern side of their plot and there is no pathway on the eastern side of the plot. Sri N. Madhava Rao would draw the attention of this Court to the Gift Deed of 1964 which shows that 150.5 sq.yards was gifted to the petitioners with the boundaries and the dimensions of the plot being set out in the said deed of gift. A perusal of the said deed of gift shows that the dimensions of the plot claimed by the petitioners in W.P.No.23302 of 2018 are as follows:
East : 14 yards
West : 14 yards
North :10.75 yards
South :10.75 yards

7. It is the contention of Sri Madhava Rao that the description of the boundaries would show that there is no pathway on the eastern side of the plot of his clients. He contends that the construction being carried on by his clients is within the boundaries of the plot owned by them and there is no encroachment of any alleged common pathway on the eastern side.

8. Sri I.Koti Reddy and Sri Seshadri Gola, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in other two writ petitions would submit that clients of Sri Madhava Rao had encroached into a common pathway which is existing on the eastern side of their plot with a width of 9 feet. They support this contention by drawing the attention of this Court to two documents. The first document is the report of the Tahsildar, Movva dated 18.10.2012, to the Village Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, stating that a survey had been conducted on 18.10.2012 which shows that there