Pradesh High Court (as it then was) in the case of Koganti Venkata Suryanarayana v. The State of A.P. rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban

in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respendent No 2 to 4 to restrain Respondent Ng. 5 from obstructing the ingress and egress of the Petifioner to the Subject Propqrty flgm the public roqd / Bandi Daari (part track) feqding from Esojipet Village tg Minpqr Village via Kodur Village, pen(ilr9 disposal sf the Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petitiqn under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in lhe circum6tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High C-ourt may be pleased to direct Respqndent No 2 to 4 lo restore the public road/ Bandi Daari (cart track) leading from Fsolipet Village lo Mippur Village via KodHr Village !o its previous state aq delineated in the revenuq records/ vitlage Map/ nakshe etc., thereqy granting the peti!ioner 4nd other villagerg access te thei( respectivg landa pending dispqsal of the writ Petition. Counse! Cqunset Cou nsel Counsel for the for ihe for the for the Petitioner: SRI SUMITH RAJ Respondent No.'l: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RUBAL DEV Respondent No.2 & 3: GP FOR REVENUE Respondent No.4: SRI R.CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, Cou nsel for tfe Respondent No.5: SRI K.RAMA SUBBA RAO SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT The Court made the following: ORDER €\ THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION NO.I4988 OF 2024 ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representations/complaints dt.08.01.2024,

19.04.2024 and20.04.2024 and to remove the encroachments made by the 5th respondent on the common public roadT Bandi Daari (cart track) leading from Esojipet Village to Minpur Vitlage vra Koduru Village passing through Survey Nos.2l3, 214, 254, 260, 262, 259, 299, 300, 301, 306, 312,313,316 and 317 of Koduru Village, Pulkal Mandal, Sangareddy District and to restore the common public road in accordance with law and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.2.24 guntas in Survey No.2l4 situated at Koduru Village, Pulkal Mandal, Sangareddy District, having inherited the same and the name of the petitioner is also recorded in the revenue records and he has been issued TD-cum-e.passbook. It is 2 W.P.No.l4988 of 2024 I submitted that the subject property is situated by the side of.the common public road/ Bandi Daari (cart track) leading from Eso.jipet Village to Minpur Village vla Kodunr Village and the said public road is classified as Bandi Daari (caft track) in the revenue records/ village maps/ Naksha, etc., and the wiclth of the Bandi Daari (cart track) is about 8 metres and the same is being used by the petitioner and his neighbouring land owners from dccades to have access to their lands. It is submittecl that the said track is the only way to reach the petitioner's land. It is submitted that the 5th respondent, who is his neighbouring land owner, encroached the said Bandi Daari (cart track) and thus blocked the right of way and ingress and egress of the petitioner to the subject property. Therefore, the pctitioner has submitted representation s dt.}g.01 .2024,

19.04.2024 and 20.04.2024 for removal of the encroachments, but no action has been taken by the official respondents and therefore, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Respondents 3,4 and 5 have filed their respective counters along with relevant documents

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that rrnder Section 58(l) olthe Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, all public roads in any (/-'\ 3 W.P.No.l4988 of 2024 village, other than National Highways, State Highways and roads vesting in Zllla Praja Parishad or Mandal Praja Parishad, shall vest in the Gram Panchayat together with atl pavements, stones and other materials thereof, all works, materials and other things provided therefor, all sewers, drains, drainage works, tunnels and culverts, whether made at the cost of the Gram Panchayat fund or otherwise, in alongside or under such roads, and all works, materials and things appertaining thereto and the proviso thereunder provides that the Cram Panchayat shall take steps to remove encroachments on, and prevent un- authorized use of, any road, other than a National IJighway passing through the Gram Panchayat. The leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there is a cart track leading from Esoj ipet Village to Minpur Village vta Koduru Villagc passing through various survey numbers of the Village and adjacent to the lands of the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent and various other lands of the village, the Gram Panchayat, i.e., the 4ft respondent ought to have taken cognizance of the complaints of the petitioner and ought to have taken action thereon.

5. He further submitted that Section 92 of the Telangana Panchayat nal actfr6-viOes for removal of encroachments by the Gram Panchayat. 4 W.P.No. 14988 of 2024 A As regards the contention of the 4th respondent that the alleged cart track '-l is not a public road, the leamed counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon tlre definition of 'public road' under Scction 2(34) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act to mean "any street, road, square, Couft, a[[ey, passage and includes the roadway over any public bridge or cause- way, thc footwav attached to any such road, public bridge or cause-way, and the drains attached to any such road, public bridge or cause-way." He submitted that'cart way' also falls within the delinition of 'public road'

6. The learncd counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this (lourt to thc Telangana Land Encroachment Act, l!)05 and Section 2 thereof to subnrit that all public roads and streets vested in local authority shall, tirr the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the property o I the (iovemment.

7. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh lTelangana Area) Land Revenue Act, I 3 l7-F to submit that all public roads, lanes, paths, bridges, etc., are the property of the Govemrnent 5 W P.No.14988 of2024

8. The leamed counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that the cart track leading from Esojipet Village to Minpur Village via Koduru Village is shown in the village map and therefore, it is a public road and public officials are required to see that there are no encroachments on the said road. The leamed counsel lor the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (as it then was) in the case of Koganti Venkata Suryanarayana Vs. The State of A.P. rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and others in supporl of his contention that public roads are to be safeguarded by the authorities.

9. Learned Govemment Pleader for Revenue has referred to the averments made by the 3'd respondent in his counter affidavit to submit that there existed a Bandi Daari (cart track) leading from Esojipet Village to Minpur Village vra Koduru Village and the same is passing through Survey Nos.212, 213, 214, 254, 260, 316, 315, 313, 312 and 306 and the same was being used by the farmers and neighbouring land owners to have access to their lands and for taking carts for agricultural operations. It is submitted that the 5th respondent and other land owners have blocked the cart track and it is completely under cultivation. It is ., \ 6 W.P.No.l4988 of 2024 n. further subrnitted that action is being taken to remove the encroachments lrom the cart track after harvesting the paddy crops which existed in the above survey n Lrrnbcr lands. Enclosed to the.. counter affidavit is the letter addrcssecl by the Mandal Surveyor to the lahsildar, Pulkal Mandal, whereirr it is confirmed that on field verification with the village map, it is lirund that there is a Bandla Bata (cart track) passing through Surve1 Nos.2l2, 213, 214, 254, 260, 315, 312, 313, 316, 306, but not passing thlough Survey Nos.299, 262 and 307 and that the Bandla Bata has been encrcached and it is completely under cultivation. The learncd Govcmment Pleader for Revenue therefore submits that necessary action has to be taken by the authorities for removal of the encroachmcnts on the cart track

10. Learncd Standing (lounsel for the Gram Panchayat, i.e., the 4th respondent has submitted that the alleged cart track leading from Esojipet Villagc Minpur Village vra Koduru Village is not in existence for the past 40 years and further that the Panchayat Secretary is not the compelent authority for the encroachments in the fields. It is further submitted that there is a title dispute between the petitioner 7 W. P.No.l49EE of 2024 herein and the unofficial respondent, i.e., the 5'h respondent which is the genesis lor this Writ Petition.

11. The 5'h respondent has also filed a counter affidavit stating that the alleged Bandi Daari which is about 8 metres width is not in public use for the last 40 years in view of laying of public road adjacent to the land ol the neigbour of the petitioner and Survey No.262, i.e., the road leading lrom Taddanpally to Singur. A copy of the Google map is also filed to demonstrate the same. Thus, according to him, there is no.public road and therefore, Section 58(1) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act is not applicable in this case. Along with the memo dt.06.01.2025, Google maps of relevant area are also filed by the 5th respondent.

12. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that admittedly, there was.a cart track leading from Esojipet Village to Minpur Village vra Koduru Village and the same is reflected in the village map. The 3'd respondent has also confirmed the same and it is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is having land in Survey No.2l4 of Koduru Village and the said cart track was passing alongside the same. It is also an admitted fact that the said cart track is-_ - 8 W.P.No. t4988 of 2024 d, not in existencc now due to encroachments by the neighbouring land owTlers.

13. Whcther 'car1 track' can be called as a 'public road' is an issue which needs considcration. Under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) I-and Revenue Act, 1317-F, all pubtic roads, lanes, paths, bridges, ditches, dikes, rivers, streams, tanks, ponds, canals, lakes, flowing water and all lands, wherever situated, together with all rights appertaining therelo are the property of the Govemment except those belonging to persons or class legally capabte of holding property and to the extent so far as thcir such rights are established and those in respect of which any other order under any law may have been given. The word 'paths' though has not been defined under the Ao, its dictionary meaning is 'a way or track laid down for walking or made by continual treading.' Therefbre, any path which has been laid down either for walk or for treading of animals, i.e., lor carts is also a path and is the property of the Covemmcnt. In the Ilules under Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Boundaries Acr, 1923 laying down the principles in the field survey demarcation ol foot-paths and cart tracks, it is provided that where a caft track is indicated in any old document or record, the I maximum extent of l0 feet width (3.04 metres) shall be indicated as a 9 w.P.No.l49EE of 2024 cart track in the survey record and a distinct indication should be made between a foot-path and cart track. If the cart track passes entirely through the fietd of a single owner that owner has to leave the entire cart track of l0 leet width (3.04 metres). In case it passes between the fields of two different owners, each owner has to leave 5 feet width ( I .5 metres) for purpose of cart track. This itself indicates that the foot-paths and cart tracks are also recognized as paths for the purpose of public roads and therefore, it is the bounden duty of the concemed authorities to saleguard the same and remove the encroachments ofsuch paths. The 4th respondent may not be the authority to protect or remove the \ \ encroachments on cart tracks as the agricultural land would not come within the jurisdiction of the 4'h respondent. The 2nd and 3'd respondents being revenue authorities are the custodians of all public roads. When the petitioner and other villagers have given representations to the 2nd and 3'd respondents against the encroachment of the subject cart track by the 5ft respondent and others, they ought to have taken action against the same. However, as per the undertaking given by the 3'd respondent in his counter affidavit filed in the present Writ Petition that the encroachments would be removed after harvesting of paddy crops, this l0 W.P.No.l498E of2024 t. court direct respondents 2 and 3 to take immediate action accordingly and remove the encroachrnents and re-establish the subject cart track in accordancc with thc rules under Section 26 of Andhra pradesh Boundaries Act, 1923

14. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

15. Pending miscellancotrs petitions, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY R PUTY ECTTON OFFICER 1 The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department' Secretariat Buildings' Hyderabad. State of Telangana' I To,

2. The District Collector, Sangareddy District' 3. The Tahsildar, Pulkal lr/landal, Sangareddy District' 4. The Panchayat Secretary, Koduru Gram Panchayat' Sangaredfly District' 5. One CC to SRI SUMITH RAJ' Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI K RAMA SUBBA RAO' Advocate tQPUCl 7 I o REPDY. SQ FOR GRAM One CC to SBI R CHANDRA SHEKAR PANCHAYAT [OPUA] Two CCs ta GP FOR PANCHAYATfAJ RURAL DEV' High Courl for the Si;Liii"l;"sana at HYderabad [our] Two QCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana a[ Hyderabad [OUT]

10.Two CQ Copies BSR FS HIGH COURT DATED:0910412025 ORDER WP.No.14988 of 2024 1 HE S14 rt o3 --- l 1 0 At)f, 2025 It ',-,.,'..-.., DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS /+ 4.,.1 ,/2,