K VEERAIAH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT OF ANGIREKULAPADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is for a writ of mandamus declaring that the respondents have no right to carve out or lay road in an extent of 0.25 cents of land situated in S.No.55/1 of Anneboyinapalle Revenue village, Prakasam district, without adverting to land acquisition proceedings.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased 0.25 cents of land situated in the north-west corner of S.No.55/1 out of the total extent of Ac.4-48 cents from the Bezwada Kondaiah under an agreement of sale about 25 years ago and eversince he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The remaining land in S.No.55/1 is owned by Bezwada Kondaiah and the land situated to the north of S.No.55/1 belongs to one Allam Malakondaiah. It is stated that the land situated to the north of the land Allam Malakondaiah belonged to one Allam Anjaiah, who is the President of the village. The said land measuring Ac.1-00 has been acquired by the Government for the purpose of house-sites to weaker sections and about 20 houses have sprung up in that land. Those 20 houses were occupied about six months back and they are connected with the bazar in the village, situated towards west directly. The site of the petitioner, it is stated, is also connected with the bazar in the village directly through a passage. It is stated that due to political rivalry, the Sarpanch is instigating some of the occupants of the houses constructed under weaker section housing scheme, to encroach upon the land of the petitioner. This, the petitioner contends, is a gross abuse of power, which the Sarpanch is exercising and the encroachment is unwarranted. When the petitioner has tried to prevent the encroachers from entering into the land, for some reason the people, whose houses have come up recently under the weaker section housing programme, made a representation to the Mandal Revenue Officer and other Government officials through the local M.L.A., who is opposed to the petitioner. It is further stated that the Sarpanch, with the help of the local M.L.A., tried to forcibly encroach upon the site and lay road connecting the weaker section housing colony. The petitioner had taken recourse to have fencing around his site in order to protect his land from the encroachers. But, it is stated, respondents 2 to 5, in collusion with the police, came and high-handedly removed the fencing of the site on the north-west comer. Thus, it is stated, there is an encroachment deliberately committed by respondents 2 to 5 in order to deprive the petitioner of his land.

(3.) On behalf of the official respondents, no counter has been filed.