Subhashini Rani Gullaplli & Anr. v. Koduru Gopalakrishna & Ors.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.30789 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri B.P.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G. Raju, learned counsel representing Sri G. Elisha, learned Standing Counsel for Panchayats for the second respondent, Sri Zakir Ali Danish, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for respondents 3 and 4 and Sri Emani Srinivas, learned counsel for the first respondent.

The first petitioner is the owner of a plot of 300 square yards and the second petitioner is the owner of a plot of 684 square yards in R.S.No.52 of Satrampadu Village purchased under respective registered sale deeds. The grievance of the petitioners is about the alleged construction by the first respondent by encroaching into a 30 square feet road shown as the Western boundary for the first petitioner’s plot and the Eastern boundary for the second petitioner’s plot. Complaining against the inaction by the official respondents and collusion, the writ has been filed.

The first respondent in his counter affidavit claimed that he also purchased 418 square yards in R.S.No.52 of Satrampadu Gram Panchayat under a registered sale deed dated 22.01.2010 and obtained permission for construction of a house from the Gram Panchayat, which he is constructing strictly in accordance with the approved plan. He also stated about I.A.No.549 of 2010 in O.S.No.381 of 2010 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge’s C ourt, Eluru, filed by one Mandava Muralikrishna for temporary injunction being dismissed on merits on 02.09.2010 and he claims that the said Muralikrishna, who owns corner plot in Survey No.47, is behind this writ petition. He therefore, desired that the interim direction given herein be vacated and the writ petition be dismissed.

The Gram Panchayat in its counter-affidavit stated that the first respondent is making construction in pursuance of the approved plan and permission granted by the Gram Panchayat and when the petitioners gave a representation the Gram Panchayat on

13.09.2010, the Panchayat Secretary has made a personal inspection and found no deviation from the approved plan. The Panchayat Secretary denied any collusion with the first respondent and also stated that the appropriate remedy would have been a revision, before the Government under Section 264 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

The first respondent further filed copies of some photographs to probablise his contention that there was no occupation of the road by his construction.

The purchase of the respective plots by the petitioners and the first respondent is not in dispute. Nor can the right of the first respondent to have his construction in his own site be disputed by the petitioners. Any adverse view that can be is only on probablisation of the alleged encroachment by the construction by the first respondent into any portion of 30 feet road, which is the boundary for the plots of the petitioners. The petitioners apart from filing one photograph of the construction made from one angle, did not substantiate their allegations by any other material and the Panchayat Secretary, who is interested in the dispute only in the performance of his official duties states that the first respondent did not deviate from the approved plan and permission and there was no encroachment into the said 30 feet road. There is no reason to prefer the self-serving and interesting claims of the petitioners in this regard. The photographs filed by the first respondent also do not make it probable that any existing road/way is interfered with by the construction being made by the first respondent. Under circumstances, in a writ where disputed questions of fact will not be considered for adjudication, the relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted.