JUDGMENT U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. - The petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned notice dated 08.09.2017 issued by the 5th respondent proposing to lay the road through the petitioners land admeasuring Ac.0.15 cents in Sy.Nos.114/1 and 114/4 situated at Bogyamvaripalli Village, H/o.Vempadu, Varikuntapadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, without following the procedure contemplated under the statute, as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to set aside the aforesaid notice. 2. The petitioners' case is thus: (a) The 1st petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of a thatched house with open space to an extent of Ac.0.15 cents in Sy.No.114/1 and 114/4, situated at Bogyamvaripalli Village and the same was acquired from his ancestors. The petitioner has been paying the requisite tax regularly. The said land is surrounded by a compound wall which is in existence since several years. Later, the said land was divided among himself and his two sons and they are residing in their respective extents. (b) While so, on 22.05.2017 a notice has been issued by 5 th respondent pursuant to the resolution No.16/2017 dated 27.04.2017 alleging that the petitioners have encroached the public road and constructed the compound wall and directed them to submit their explanation. On 31.07.2017 the petitioners have submitted their explanation, but, without passing any orders on the said explanation, the 5th respondent and his subordinates have made attempts to demolish the compound wall. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court and filed W.P.Nos.27393 of 2017 and 25151 of 2017 and the said petitions were disposed of on 24.08.2017 and 03.10.2017 respectively with a direction to 5th respondent to pass orders on the explanation submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law. Pending the above two writ petitions, a letter dated 18.08.2017 was addressed by the 4th respondent to the M.P.D.O stating that the possession certificates issued in favour of petitioners are fake and the same were not issued from his office. (c) The petitioner further submit that at the time of passing the orders in W.P.No.25151 of 2017 on 03.10.2017, the 5th respondent submitted before the Court that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is pending for consideration, basing on which, the said petition was disposed of. Finally, on 13.10.2017 the 5th respondent and his subordinates, illegally and highhandedly demolished the said compound wall, with the assistance of the Police. Hence the writ petition. 3. Finally, on 13.10.2017 the 5th respondent and his subordinates, illegally and highhandedly demolished the said compound wall, with the assistance of the Police. Hence the writ petition. 3. The 4th respondent filed counter denying the petition averments and further contended that the Grama Panchayat, Vempadu has passed a resolution No.16/2017 to take action to remove the compound wall constructed by the petitioners on the road without any valid permission and documents. It is further submitted that as the road intended for passage for men, cattle, material and vehicles to the colony, the compound wall erected thereon was removed at the request of the villagers by the Gram Panchayat. It is stated as the petitioners have constructed a house on the panchayat road, around 20 families are suffering for want of passage to their colony by laying a road connecting R&B main road and the petitioner has encroached an extent of Ac.0.11 cents without the permission of the Gram Panchayat as the subject land vests with the Grama Panchayat. 4. The 5th respondent also filed counter denying the averments of the petition and further contended that the possession certificate dated 19.11.2013 in respect of the subject land submitted by the petitioners is a bogus one. He further contended that the villagers have made a representation dated 26.05.2017 stating that the petitioners constructed a compound wall by encroaching the entire road and sought to take action against the petitioners. He further contended that the said demolition is made even prior to filing of this writ petition and even the structures raised by the petitioners are illegal and that the Gram Panchayat never granted any building permission for construction of their houses and they are not entitled to continue in the said encroached place. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri P.V. Sai Krishna, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing respondent Nos.1 and 3, learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent Nos.2 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.5. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 7. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri P.V. Sai Krishna, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing respondent Nos.1 and 3, learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent Nos.2 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.5. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 7. Point: Learned counsel for petitioners vehemently contented that the subject property i.e., thatched house with an open land in an extent of Ac.0.15 cents covered by S.Nos.114/1 & 114/4 situated in Bogyamvaripalli Village is the ancestral property of the 1st petitioner and they are paying the tax to the 5th respondent and subsequently the 1 st petitioner and his two sons have divided the said land and residing in their respective extents and they obtained individual possession certificates from the Tahsildar, Varikuntapadu Mandal and around their house, there is a compound wall and except the petitioners, none others, much less the 5th respondent Gram Panchayat have any right over the said property. It is further argued by the learned counsel that earlier when the officials of 5th respondent tried to meddle with the petitioners' property and demolish the compound wall to lay public road over the petitioners' property on the false claim that the petitioners have encroached upon Ac.0.10 1/2 cents of Gram Panchayat, the petitioners filed Writ Petition Nos.27393 of 2017 and 25151 of 2017 wherein directions were issued to follow the due process of law before taking any action against the petitioners but without following the directions of this court, the 5th respondent authorities have highhandedly demolished the compound wall of the petitioners on 13.10.2017 and laid road. He thus, prayed for appropriate orders. 8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for 5th respondent would argue that the petitioners' family are owners of only Ac.0.04 cents in S.No.141/1 but they encroached upon Ac.0.11 cents of the land of Gram Panchayat and constructed compound wall. Such encroachment caused obstruction for forming a road to the residents of colony situated to the South of petitioners' house. Therefore, the 5th respondent issued show cause notice by following due process of law. The petitioners submitted their explanation and also filed writ petitions wherein this Court directed the Gram Panchayat to follow due process of law for initiating action against the petitioners. Therefore, the 5th respondent issued show cause notice by following due process of law. The petitioners submitted their explanation and also filed writ petitions wherein this Court directed the Gram Panchayat to follow due process of law for initiating action against the petitioners. The 5th respondent scrupulously followed the said direction and having found that the petitioners are encroachers in respect of Ac.0.11 cents of land belonging to Gram Panchayat and having found that the possession certificate filed by them was bogus one and not issued by the 4 th respondent, ultimately, demolished the compound wall with the assistance of Revenue and Police officials and laid road for convenience of villagers. He argued that the petitioners have absolutely no right, title and interest over the Ac.0.11 cents of land and there are no merits in the writ petition. He thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. While it is the contention of petitioners that the entire Ac.0.15 cents of land, over which a thatched house is in existence, is the ancestral property of the petitioners, which they have been enjoyed since generations and paying tax to the Gram Panchayat and the 1st petitioner and his two sons have divided their respective shares and there is a compound wall around their houses, in oppugnation, the contention of the respondents is that out of Ac.0.15 cents, only Ac.0.04 cents belong to the petitioners and remaining Ac.0.11 cents belong to Gram Panchayat which was encroached upon by the petitioners and a compound wall was constructed. It is also the contention of the respondents that the possession certificate relied upon by the petitioners was never issued by the Tahsildar and it is a bogus one. They emphasize that the 5th respondent followed due process of law and ultimately demolished the compound wall and laid road. 10. Admittedly, the present writ petition is the third round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioners filed W.P.No.25151 of 2017 and W.P.No.27393 of 2017. The W.P.No.25151 of 2017 was filed challenging the notice dated 03.07.2017 issued by the 5th respondent calling for their explanation with regard to the unauthorized constructions allegedly made by the petitioners in an extent of Ac.0.15 cents in S.No.114/1. Earlier, the petitioners filed W.P.No.25151 of 2017 and W.P.No.27393 of 2017. The W.P.No.25151 of 2017 was filed challenging the notice dated 03.07.2017 issued by the 5th respondent calling for their explanation with regard to the unauthorized constructions allegedly made by the petitioners in an extent of Ac.0.15 cents in S.No.114/1. While the said petition was pending, it seems the petitioners filed W.P.No.27393 of 2017 challenging the letter dated 10.08.2017 addressed by Tahsildar requesting the S.H.O., Varikuntapadu to give Police protection to undertake demolition of the property belonging to the petitioners in order to lay a road in the village. It is contended in the requisition that no proper procedure followed before making attempt to demolish the property. While so, of the above two writ petitions, W.P.No.27393 of 2017 was disposed earlier on 24.08.2017. Having considered the contention of the Gram Panchayat that the land is classified as "Grama Kantam" and petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the Gram Panchayat land in addition to what was assigned to them and constructed compound wall blocking the way of the villagers and also considering that show cause notice was issued to the petitioners as to why illegal encroachments made by them cannot be removed and petitioners submitted their explanation, this court in its order directed that the Gram Panchayat shall consider the explanation on its merits and pass appropriate order as warranted by law by assigning due reasons in support of the decision. Thus, as can be seen from above, this Court has not given any definite finding regarding the rival ownership claimed by the petitioners on one hand and Gram Panchayat on the other. It only directed to consider the explanation and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Then, the W.P.No.25151 of 2017 was disposed on 03.10.2017 more or less with similar observations as in the previous order. This court observed that since the petitioners have submitted their explanation on 31.07.2017, the Gram Panchayat shall pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. So, this court through the above two orders mainly emphasized that due process of law should be followed in the subject matter. Therefore, none of the parties claimed that they have succeeded in the earlier round of litigation. 11. Then, the turn of the events is that the respondent authorities have demolished the compound wall and laid road. So, this court through the above two orders mainly emphasized that due process of law should be followed in the subject matter. Therefore, none of the parties claimed that they have succeeded in the earlier round of litigation. 11. Then, the turn of the events is that the respondent authorities have demolished the compound wall and laid road. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Gram Panchayat has illegally acted in this regard. On a careful perusal of respective parties, it is evident that both are claiming title in respect of around Ac.0.11 cents. The petitioners' claim is that the said extent of property is their ancestral property. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners filed a copy of the possession certificate said to be issued by Tahsildar, Varikuntapadu. However, the respondents claim that the said certificate was not issued by MRO and it is a bogus one. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have not filed any other documents showing their title over the disputed site. That apart, since the present proceedings are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in the present writ proceedings, it is not possible to determine the title of the petitioners over the subject land to give a finding that the respondent authorities have highhandedly demolished their compound wall, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners can approach common law court to seek declaration of their title and other consequential reliefs in respect of the disputed property by initiating appropriate proceedings if they are so advised. 12. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.