Judgment : This appeal is preferred by the defendant challenging the decree and judgment dated 14.7.2004 in A.S.No.27 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Yellamanchini, confirming in appeal the decree and judgment dated 30.7.2001 in O.S.No.55 of 1996 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Yellamanchili. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the suit. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell is as follows. The plaintiff Gram Panchayat is in existence since long time. Narasannapeta Ward is centrally located busy area of plaintiff Gram Panchayat, adjacent to NH-5 road. The defendant has been carrying on business in timber and other house construction material In Narasannapeta Ward. The defendant is also running electric saw mill. The business premises of the defendant is located at a tri-junction of Gram Panchayat road near Nagendra residential colony just opposite to main post office building. NH-5 road running across the Yellamanchili town is very nearer to the defendant’s premises intervened by RTC bus stand. As can be seen from the plaint sketch, there is a Gram Panchayat road running from Gandhinagar area to NH-5 road, which is quite adjacent to the timber depot premises of the defendant. The public road is in existence even before inception of plaintiff Gram Panchayat and that road exclusively belongs to it. Recently, the plaintiff Gram Panchayat constructed new culvert at the tri-junction near defendant’s timber depot. The width of the Gram Panchayat road at the defendant’s timber depot is 49’. In the recent days, in utter disregard of public safety and convenience, the defendant started to stock huge and heavy timber logs, beams etc., on either side of the panahcyat road outside its entrance gate. It is causing obstruction and annoyance to the neighbouring residents and the public using the Gram Panchayat road. The plaintiff has received number of complaints against the defendant. The Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat issued a notice to the defendant directing him not to obstruct the Gram Panchayat road. The defendant got issued reply notice. The area of the road obstructed by the defendant extends to a length of 59’ and the width of 49’ road. Hence the suit is filed for perpetual injunction. The defendant filed written statement inter alia contending that the residents or the public of the locality never made any representation to the plaintiff. The defendant got issued reply notice. The area of the road obstructed by the defendant extends to a length of 59’ and the width of 49’ road. Hence the suit is filed for perpetual injunction. The defendant filed written statement inter alia contending that the residents or the public of the locality never made any representation to the plaintiff. Neither the Executive Officer nor the President of the Gram Panchayat visited the locality at any time. The officials of the Gram Panchayat never requested the defendant and his men not to cause any obstruction to the public. The defendant is keeping timber in Government poramboke situated in survey Nos.53-3 and 378-8. The parents of the defendant and the defendant have been paying B-memo charges for the Government for using the Government poramboke. The building in which the timber depot is situated belongs to his mother. The defendant is using the Government poramboke for keeping his logs whenever necessary. The space between the post office building and the timber depot of the defendant is the end portion of the way via the western bund of “Kommayya” tank from NH-5. There are thorny bushes and huts on either side of the tank bund. The plaintiff never made any repairs to the said space and the way via tank bund, and is allowing the same to get deteriorated from year to year. It is this omission on the part of the plaintiff is causing inconvenience to the public, but not the acts of the defendant as alleged in the plaint. The defendant has given a suitable reply dated 01.2.1996 to the notice issued by the plaintiff. Again the plaintiff gave a notice dated 10.6.1996 asking the defendant to remove the logs on the road. The suit is filed at the instance of the Sapranch of the plaintiff Gram Panchayat suspecting that the defendant worked against her in the recent elections. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The trial court has framed only one issue. In the trial court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B10 were marked. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The trial court has framed only one issue. In the trial court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B10 were marked. Basing on the oral, documentary evidence and other material available on record, the trial court granted perpetual injunction directing the defendant not to keep wood logs on either side of the road. Being aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the trial court, the defendant filed A.S.No.27 of 2001 and the same was dismissed on 14.7.2004 confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court. Hence, this second appeal. This appeal was admitted on 27.4.2005 basing on the following substantial questions of law. 1) Whether, a suit by the Gram Panchayat for a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from causing obstructions to the passage, is maintainable? 2) When the admitted case of the plaintiff is, that, the defendant encroached upon the plaintiff’s property, whether a suit for injunction is maintainable? Heard the learned counsel for appellant/defendant. None appeared for respondent/plaintiff. As seen from the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the present and former Executive Officers of the plaintiff Gram Panchayat, the defendant’s saw mill is situated in tri-junction of Narasannapeta Ward of plaintiff Gram Panchayat. As per the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 and D.Ws.1 to 4, the defendant’s saw mill is situated opposite to old post office, adjacent to NH-5. The oral testimony of witnesses examined on both sides clearly reveals that the road situated in front of defendant’s timber depot is busy area, and “Kommayya” tank is situated near the timber depot of the defendant. As per the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 the defendant has been keeping wood cut and uncut wood logs on either side of the road. In the cross-examination, D.W.1 categorically deposed that he is keeping wood logs on both sides of the road temporarily and shift them into the saw mill in course of time. In the cross-examination, D.Ws.2 and 3 in unequivocal terms deposed that the defendant used to keep their timber on both sides of the road. In the cross-examination D.W.1 categorically admitted that on the north-west corner of the saw mill, there is a four road junction and culvert. In the cross-examination, D.Ws.2 and 3 in unequivocal terms deposed that the defendant used to keep their timber on both sides of the road. In the cross-examination D.W.1 categorically admitted that on the north-west corner of the saw mill, there is a four road junction and culvert. His saw mill is situated on the west of the road leads to Gandhinagar from NH-5. He further admitted that the water tank is under construction near the saw mill. P.W.4 is a Postmaster, who categorically deposed that the defendant is keeping wood logs in front of the post office and thereby causing much inconvenience to the public. The oral testimony of P.Ws.2 to 4 clearly reveals that the defendant is causing obstruction for free passage of the vehicles and pedestrians on the Gram Panchayat road. A perusal of Exs.A11 to A18 clearly reveals that the road on which the defendant is keeping wood logs is vested in the plaintiff panchayat. Learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant submitted that there is a discrepancy with regard to the nature of the road and hence the court cannot place reliance on it. Whether it is a metal road or tar road, is not of much significance as the road vests in plaintiff Gram Panchayat. The contention of the defendant is that he has been keeping his logs on Government poramboke by paying B-memo charges. Exs.B1 to B7 are B-memo tax receipts dated 05.3.1996, 15.3.1988, 05.12.1989, 29.12.1992, 30.1.1993, 20.1.1994 and 25.2.1995 respectively. Exs.B1, B6 and B7 receipts are in the name of mother of the defendant and Exs.B2 to B5 receipts are in the name of the father of the defendant. A perusal of the above receipts clearly reveals that no payment was made by the defendant, after 25.2.1995. Even as per Exs.B1 to B7, the defendant is entitled to keep the logs in survey Nos.53-3 and 378-8. Payment of B-memo charges would not entitle the defendant to keep the logs on either side of the road, which is vested in the Gram Panchayat. A perusal of Ex.A9 clearly reveals that the Executive Officer of plaintiff Gram Panchayat addressed a letter dated 12.2.1996 to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yellamanchili (MRO) requesting him to cancel the B-memo if any issued in favour of the defendant. A perusal of Ex.A9 clearly reveals that the Executive Officer of plaintiff Gram Panchayat addressed a letter dated 12.2.1996 to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yellamanchili (MRO) requesting him to cancel the B-memo if any issued in favour of the defendant. The MRO issued reply (Ex.A10) stating that they are not collecting B-memo charges from the defendant’s saw mill in view of the objections raised for using road margins. In Ex.A10, the MRO clearly mentioned that the defendant has been keeping the logs on either side of the road as well within the compound of the post office. The oral testimony of P.W.4 is fully supported by the recitals of Ex.A10. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, I have no hesitation to hold that the defendant has been keeping the logs on either side of the Gram Panchayat road and in front of post office and thereby causing much inconvenience to the pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant while drawing my attention to Section 98 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act) and Rule 4 of the A.P. Gram Panchayats (Protection of Property) Rules, 2011 (the Panchayat Property Rules), strenuously submitted that the jurisdiction of civil court is ousted in respect of encroachment of Gram Panchayat property. A perusal of Section 98 of the Act in conjunction with Rule 4 of the Panchayat Property Rules clearly manifests the procedure to be followed by the Gram Panchayat for eviction of encroachers of its property. Section 98 of the Act prescribes that encroacher of a Gram Panchayat property be removed after giving due notice and by paying necessary compensation if required by law. Section 53 of the Act postulates that all public roads, sewers, drains, culverts etc., in any village vest in the Gram Panchayats and it empowers them to remove the encroachments by following the procedure prescribed by the Panchayat PropertyRules made thereunder. A perusal of Exs.A1, A2, A3, B8, B9 and B10 clearly reveals that notices were exchanged between the parties. This clearly indicates that the plaintiff Gram Panchayat has given a reasonable opportunity to the defendant to remove logs kept on the Gram Panchayat road prior to filing of the suit. By doing so, plaintiff Gram Panchayat followed the procedure contemplated under Section 98 of the Act. This clearly indicates that the plaintiff Gram Panchayat has given a reasonable opportunity to the defendant to remove logs kept on the Gram Panchayat road prior to filing of the suit. By doing so, plaintiff Gram Panchayat followed the procedure contemplated under Section 98 of the Act. The Panchayat Property Rules came into force with effect from 21.7.2011 and were published in A.P. Gazette, RS to Part VII (Ext.), dated 22.7.2011. No material is placed before this court that any Rules or provisions similar to Panchayat Property Rules were in force prior to 21.7.2011. There is no stipulation in Section 98 of the Act that the jurisdiction of civil court is ousted for eviction of encroachers of Gram Panchayat property. Prior to 2011, the Act is silent with regard to the machinery provided for eviction of encroachers from Gram Panchayat property. The civil court is entitled to entertain all types of suits unless the jurisdiction of civil court is ousted by any special enactment which provides effective machinery for adjudication. Prior to these Rules there is no alternative and efficacious machinery for removal of encroachments of Gram Panchayat properties except to approach civil court for redressal. The suit was filed in the year 1996 nearly 15 years prior to the Panchayat Property Rules came into force. Therefore, these Rules are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Hence, I am unable to countenance the contention of the defendant that the suit is not maintainable on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the civil court. In Karanam Manjunath v District Collector, Kurnool ( 2010(4) ALD 476 ), a learned Single Judge of this court while dealing with the rights of the citizens by occupying road margins and carrying petty businesses, after referring entire case law on the subject in para 4 of its judgment, it was observed as follows. “… … The law of the streets is well-settled. The road is primarily meant for citizens to pass and re-pass and use for conveyance….The right to carry on business, trade or profession being a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India any total prohibition of carrying on business on the road is unconstitutional. However, no citizen can claim absolute right to squat on the road either for the purpose of business or for the purpose of residence. However, no citizen can claim absolute right to squat on the road either for the purpose of business or for the purpose of residence. Roads are not meant for building houses and residential huts. Roads are basically meant for citizens for passing and re-passing. As long as the citizens’ activity in relation to road does not offend or affect the rights of other citizens, in that the use of the road does not obstruct the other citizens, no objection can be taken. But, when once a citizen claims a right to squat on the road either by raising temporary structure or either by raising temporary structure or permanent structure for business or residence, the law does not recognise such right … …” Further, in para -5 it was also observed as follows. “ … … The roads are meant for passing and re-passing by the users and they are not meant for squatters to carry on business. Sections 98 and 99 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act, for brevity) empower, nay, cast a duty on the Gram Panchayat to remove all the encroachments and keep the roads vested in Gram Panchayat under Section 53 of the Act free from encroachments. … …” The principle enunciated in the above case squarely applies to the case on hand. It is the duty of the Gram Panchayat not to allow anybody to keep something on the road which is causing obstruction to the vehicular movement and pedestrians. In the instant case, the defendant without any manner of right whatsoever has been keeping the logs on either side of the Gram Panchayat road and in front of the post office and thereby causing much inconvenience to the public at large. Public interest is the paramount consideration in this type of cases. The trial court has assigned cogent and valid reasons to its findings. The first appellate court fully endorsed the findings recorded by the trial court. I see no reason much less valid reasons to interfere with the well considered findings of the courts below. There is no question of law much less substantial question of law in this appeal, which warrants interference of this court. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.