Disputes involving the adjudication of factual aspects, such as the existence of a road or title disputes based on unapproved layouts, cannot be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 as they require leading evidence.

O R D E R

1. The instant writ petition has been filed declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in permitting the 3rd respondent to raise construction by encroaching upon the 20 feet wide public road (Grampanchayat Road) in survey No.651/C of Jammikunta, Village & Mandal, Karimnagar District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the procedure as contemplated under Grampanchayat Act and Municipalities Act and to pass such other order in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of house Nos.9-1-59, 9-1-60, 9-1-61, and 9-1-62, consisting of four portions in Survey No.651/C of Jammikunta, Karimnagar District and it is stated that a 25 feet wide Grampanchayat road towards the northern side of the petitioner plot is existing from many years and on the northern side there exists an open plot belonging to Pingili Gopal Reddy and on the eastern boundary there is a compound wall and on the southern side there exists 20 feet wide Grampanchayat road and these boundaries were approved and shown in the house sanction plan obtained by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner further averred that the 3rd respondent created a registered document by occupying the 20 feet wide road belonging to the Grampanchayat and is making hectic efforts for making construction and on coming to know that the 3rd respondent has approached the 2nd respondent for grant of permission contemplating to construct a house by occupying the said 20 feet road on the southern side of the petitioner, the petitioner has approached the 2nd respondent and also the concerned authorities not to grant any permission to the 3rd respondent and also requested the 2nd respondent to take action for removal of the encroachment. Further, at the first instance the 2nd respondent rejected the application of the 3rd respondent basing on the complaint made by the petitioner and assailing the same, the 3rd respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.No.5675 of 2014 and this Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the 3rd respondent and communicate its decision within three weeks. It is contended that the 2nd respondent without considering the objections of the petitioner and without giving any notice to the petitioner in pursuance of the orders in WP.No.5675 of 2014, dt.10.03.2014, considered the application of the 3rd respondent and granted permission to the 3rd respondent to construct a building.

4. It is vehemently contended by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has failed to consider the objections made by the petitioner and without conducting a proper inspection and without any proper enquiry, has accorded permission to the 3rd respondent thereby the 3rd respondent constructed a house by occupying the 20 feet wide Grampanchayat road in Survey No.651/C in Jammikunta Village, Karimnagar District. Further, it is stated that the petitioner has also approached the 2nd respondent under RTI Act to furnish the information regarding the application of the 2nd respondent in respect of his residential plot in Sy.No.651/C, Jammikunta Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District and in respect of the sanction/permission granted to the 3rd respondent for construction and as on the filing of the writ petition, the 3rd respondent has not furnished the information as sought for by the petitioner and on th