Prathipati Suryanarayana v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its Principal Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ******** WRIT PETITION NO.10520 of 2015 Between :

Prathipati Suryanarayana, s/o. Venkat Raju, 52 years, R/o. Door No.2-1, Muramanda Village, Kadiyam mandal, East Godavari District and others.

.... Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others.

.... Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 24.08.2015 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may : No Be allowed to see the Judgments ? :

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : No To Law Reporters/Journals :

3. Whether Their Lordship wish to see the fair : No Copy of the Judgment ? :

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10520 of 2015 ORDER :

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners who are the residents of Muramanda Village, Kadiyam Mandal of East Godavari District. Petitioners complained that respondents are proposing to lay a pucca road and construction of drainage system in the village, particularly in the area where the properties of the petitioners are located. Petitioners apprehended that on account of decision of Gram Panchayat, their properties are going to be affected and so far no process in accordance with law was initiated to acquire the private properties for public purpose.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that during pendency of the writ petition, pucca road was laid and drainage system was constructed on one side of the road.

3. Learned standing counsel submits that only to the extent of encroachment into the public space and road margins, the properties of the petitioners are affected and learned standing counsel further submits that road was not laid by the Gram Panchayat, but was laid by the Roads and Buildings Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the said Department is not made a party. According to the learned standing counsel, while laying pucca road and construction of drainage system private properties of the petitioners are not affected. Some encroachments into the public road were removed to lay the road.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that since road is

already laid and drainage system is constructed and properties were not adversely affected, no grievance of the petitioners subsists and the writ petition can be closed as no further orders are required.

5. Recording the same, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 24.08.2015 Kkm

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Writ Petition No.10520 of 2015 Date: 24.08.2015

kkm