Poola Leela, W/O.Jaya Prabhu v. The State Of Telangana Reptd By Its Principal

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.25989 of 2017 ORDER:

Petitioner claims to be the owner of land to an extent of Ac.1.01 guntas, Ac.1.39 guntas, Ac.0.13 guntas, Ac.0.15 guntas, Ac.0.361⁄2 guntas, Acs.3.01 guntas, Ac.0.21 guntas, Ac.0.37 guntas in Survey Nos.191/AB, 192/AB, 181/A, 182/A, 183/A, 196, 197/B and 195 situated at Venkatapur Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District. She contends that respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are individuals and not in Government service, acquired some properties on either side of her properties and in order to reach to the acquired properties, they intend to lay a road through her properties. As she refused to give access to the properties owned by them, respondent Nos.4 and 5 colluded with respondent No.3 i.e., Mandal Revenue Officer, Toopran Mandal, and at their instance, respondent No.3 is seeking to lay a road.

Except making such averments in the affidavit, no material is placed on record to show that Government or its authorities are seeking to form a public road and in the process, they want to utilize the land of the petitioner. It is needless to observe that whenever Government requires land for any public purpose, it is required to follow due procedure and in the process of acquiring the land of particular person for public purpose, the Mandal Revenue Officer has no role and an Officer at the level of Mandal Revenue Office cannot undertake an exercise of laying a road, if the same is already not existing. In the complaint filed before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Toopran, on 31.07.2017, petitioner

alleges that respondents 4 and 5 were attempting to lay/form a passage through her patta land. Thus, it would show that the grievance of petitioner is against private parties. Even the complaint was made only on 31.07.2017 just a day before instituting this writ petition.

Having regard to the above, I do not see any justification to entertain this writ petition.

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner has any grievance against third parties interference, she has to workout her remedies as available in law.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence.

______________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J 4th AUGUST, 2017.

kvni