APHC010208582023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 10807/2023 Between: 1. MERLA SURYA BRAMARA, D/O MERLA SIVA RAMA PRASAD, HINDU, AGED 24 YEARS, DOOR NO. 1-61, RAYAVARAM VILLAGE, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, PANCHAYATHRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICER, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. VELANGI GRAM PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, VELANGI. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in proposing to construct shops and other constructions in the road margin existing between the property of Petitioner bearing D.no.9-30 (old d.no.9-26) in an extent of Ac.0-27 cents equalsto1306 sq.yds in Sy.no.82 of Kakinada - Ravulapalem public road existing on the northern side, Velangi Village 86-Gram Panchayath, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District, which will obstruct the passage from the Petitioner's land to the Kakinada - Ravulapalem public road, as highly arbitrary, unlawful, illegal, completely to the detriment of Petitioner's p. 2 right of passage in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Art.300-A of the Constitution of India, and Rules made there under, by consequently directing the Respondents not to make any constructions of any type in the road- margin on the northern side of the above mentioned Petitioner's property, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Grant Interim Orders of Direction directing the Respondent no.3 not to make any constructions of any type in the road margin existing between the property of Petitioner bearing D.no.9-30 (old d.no.9-26) in an extent of Ac.O-27 cents = 1306 sq.yds in Sy.no.82 of Kakinada - Ravulapalem public road existing on the northern side, Velangi Village 86 Gram Panchayath, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District, until further orders of this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 in proposing to construct shops in the road margin existing between the petitioners' land in Sy.No.82 of an extent of Ac.0.27 cents of Kakinada to Ravulapalem public road situated on the Northern side, Velangi Village, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 & 2, and Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondent No.3. Page 3 of 5 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner got the property of an extent of Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.82 of Velangi Village, by virtue of a registered Gift Deed dated 25.05.2022. The petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The petitioner’s property is located in the North-East corner, and two roads pass. Respondents 2 & 3 intend to construct a structure in the road margin in Sy.No.81 of an extent of Ac.0.24 cents. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted the written instructions of respondent No.3. As seen from the instructions, the petitioner owns land of an extent of Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.82. The land of an extent of Ac.0.24 cents in Sy.No.81 belongs to the R & B Department. The petitioner encroached upon the land that belonged to the R & B Department and fenced the land. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the encroachment made by the petitioner. 6. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding the petitioner owning land of an extent of Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.82 of Velangi Village. 7. Whether the petitioner encroached upon the land of an extent of Ac.0.24 cents in Sy.No.81, a road margin (Government land), is a disputed question of fact. If the petitioner encroached upon the road margin as alleged, respondent No.3 will set the law into motion by following the due procedure of law. 8. In Sataraboyina Someswara Rao v. Sangasetti Tirupathamma1, it was observed as follows: “In my opinion, the said principle also involves public policy. No person can be allowed to occupy a portion of a public road, a highway, or even a public pathway, and argue that even after his encroachment there is sufficient space left for public to pass by. He cannot be the judge of the 1 1989 (1) ALT 36 p. 4 requirements of the public, nor can he decide for himself what extent must be left for public use and what extent must be occupied by him. At this rate, anybody will be free to occupy a portion of such public streets, highways and roads with the specious argument that there is still space left for public to pass by. Slowly these encroachments may become permanent. It is evident that such a course cannot be permitted. It is true that Section 39 expressly speaks of a discretion in the court in the matter of granting a mandatory injunction; but, the said discretion has to be exercised in accordance with law and having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case. May be that granting a mandatory injunction would result in eviction of the poor people living in the huts, or the displacement of the school which is said to be running there for the last several decades; but that can be taken care of by making appropriate directions.” 9. Thus, as seen from the extracted portion, referred supra, it is clear that in respect of a public road or highway or a public pathway, every member of the public has the right to use the land and no person can be allowed to occupy the portion of such public road, highway or pathway. The respondents are obligated to protect the rights of the public. If the respondents intend to make any construction in the road margin, the respondents shall adhere to the ratio laid down in the aforementioned order. 10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to adhere to the ratio laid down in Sataraboyina Someswara Rao’s case referred supra. If the petitioner encroaches upon any road or road margin, the authorities shall follow due process. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 10.02.2026 TVN p. 5 242 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 10807 of 2023 Date: 10.02.2026 TVN