ORDER : 1) The present Writ Petition came to be filed questioning the action of the Respondents in laying the road through land in Survey No. 104/2 admeasuring Acres 0.25 Cents situated at Uttarakanchi Village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District, without acquiring the same under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as illegal, improper and incorrect. 2) The averments in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, show that the father of the Petitioner purchased land to an extent of Acres 3.49 Cents in Survey No. 104/2 in the year 1979 and after his demise, the Petitioner become the sole and absolute owner of the property and claims to be in physical possession of the same. 3) It is said that, while the Petitioner was residing in Hyderabad, some persons illegally grabbed the land to an extent of Acres 0.10 Cents out of Acres 0.25 cents and, as such, he instituted a Suit for declaration and recovery of possession vide O.S. No. 87 of 2013. Initially, an order of injunction came to be passed. 4) While the matter stood thus, on 30.12.2014, when the Petitioner visited his home town, he was surprised to notice a stone laid on 14.12.2014, for laying a road from Uttarakanchi Village to Sarbavaram Village, through his land. The Petitioner raised objection before the 7th Respondent, who is the contractor, but to no avail. A legal notice was issued to the Respondents restraining them from laying a road through his land, but, however, nothing materialized in-spite of receipt of notice. Hence, the present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking a direction to the Respondents not to lay a road through the land of the Petitioner. 5) This Court vide Order dated 07.01.2015 directed “status-quo” to be maintained. Later on, a Vacate Stay Application came to be filed by Respondent No.5, disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. 6) It is stated that, the Writ Petitioner did not file his title deeds like, Sale Deed or Partition Deed to prove his title over the alleged property. It is further stated that, the Petitioner herein has intentionally omitted to mention the boundaries of his property, more so, when the total extent of the land is about 3½ acres, while the claim is only Acres 0.25 cents. It is further stated that, the Petitioner herein has intentionally omitted to mention the boundaries of his property, more so, when the total extent of the land is about 3½ acres, while the claim is only Acres 0.25 cents. In-fact, it is urged that, on his own showing the Petitioner stated that the property was grabbed by some unknown persons. It is further stated that, the Respondents herein have not laid any road through the land of the Petitioner and having only upgraded the road by laying a cement concrete road. 7) It is stated that, a road is in existence since last 40 years, which is also used by A.P.S.R.T.C. for plying the buses. It is said that, though, the Respondents have not touched the land of the Petitioner, Contempt Case is filed as if showing the road has been laid through the property of the Petitioner. In-fact, it is urged that upgradation of road was prior to the interim order passed and that the Respondents have not touched any private property. It is further averred in the affidavit that the title of the Petitioner, to the property in dispute, is under adjudication and, as such, the Petitioner cannot claim to be the owner of the property. The Tahsildar, Prathipadu Mandal, submitted a report stating that Survey No. 104/2 is Inam Punja Land. It is further stated that, the Department upgraded the existing road under PMGSY Scheme and the allegation that road came to be laid through the land of the Petitioner, is incorrect and bad in law. 8) The point that arises for consideration is, whether the relief sought for by the Petitioner can be granted in this Writ Petition? 9) Reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner mainly submits that, patttas, adangals and the pattadar passbooks clearly indicate that the Petitioner is the owner of the land and, as such, laying of road through the said land is illegal, improper and incorrect. He took us through the documents and also the decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S. No. 87 of 2013 in support of his plea. 10) On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj would submit that, in view of the disputed questions of fact, this Court directed the Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu, to submit a report. He took us through the documents and also the decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S. No. 87 of 2013 in support of his plea. 10) On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj would submit that, in view of the disputed questions of fact, this Court directed the Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu, to submit a report. Pursuant thereto, a report, dated 27.01.2020, came to be submitted through Ist Additional District Judge in-charge of Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, before this Court. A perusal of the same would indicate that the land through which a road has been laid is a “Grama Kantam” land. In view of the above, he pleads that, not only the report of the Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu, but the documents enclosed and filed along with the Counter would show that, in the adangal the said land is shown as “Grama Kantam” and only through the said land road is passing. In view of the above, it is urged that there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11) In reply, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, if there is any dispute with regard to location of the property, a Surveyor can be asked to submit the report and if any road is laid through the land of the Petitioner, necessary steps be taken in accordance with law. 12) It is to be noted here that, the Judgment in O.S. No.87 of 2013 was delivered on 24.04.2019. In the said case, the Plaintiff, who is the Petitioner herein sought a direction against the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 for declaration of tile over “B, C, D & E” portion of the plaint in plaint “B” schedule property; for delivery of vacant possession of plaint “B” schedule property; and for mandatory injunction, directing the Defendants to remove unauthorized constructions made at “B, C, D and E” portion in plaint schedule property. 13) From the above, it is clear that, the Petitioner herein requested the Senior Civil Judge, not only to declare him as the owner of “B, C, D and E” portion in plaint schedule property, but also sought for a mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to remove unauthorized constructions made in “B, C, D & E” portion of the plaint “B” schedule property, which is said to have been decreed. Therefore, the judgment of the Civil Court, in my view, may not come to the rescue of the Petitioner, for the reason that, there were some unauthorized structures raised by the contesting Defendants therein, which were sought to be removed by declaring the Petitioner as owner of the property. There is no reference to existence of road or removal of the road etc., in the Suit proceedings. Further, the report of the Civil Judge show that, he secured the presence of Mandal Surveyor, Prathipadu, Village Revenue Officer, Uttarakanchi Village, Gram Panchayat Secretary, Uttarakanchi, visited the said place and noted down the physical features of the road and land in Survey No. 104/2 with their assistance and also with the help of F.M.B and Field Map in Survey No.104/2 of Uttarakanchi Village. The report submitted by the Junior Civil Judge to this Court on 24.01.2020 is as under: “The Field Map shows that the land in Survey No.104/2 was situated in between the roads leads from Uttarakanchi to Peddipalem and Uttarakanchi to Lampakalova Village. There are shops on either side of the road State Bank of India in Survey No. 104/2. The Panchayat Raj road was started from Uttarakanchi Village Center to Peddipalem. The said road is consisting CC road for some extent and there is a old gravel road/mud road for some extent. The total CC road is 130 mts and from there the road is a old gravel road/mud road up to Peddipalem. The APSRTC Bus from Kakinada to Peddipalem is passed through the road situated in Survey No. 104/2. As per village ‘A’ Register the land in Survey No.104/2 is situated in Grama Kantam and the road was passing since 1927. The CC road was there for 20 mts from village center. Thereafter 15 mts mud/gravel road. Later some extent CC road with 12 feet width for about 100 mts. There is a 6 feet road margin on both sides of the CC road and permanent open drainage on both sides. The said panchayath Raj road was going upto Peddipalem Village and after 150 mts., there is a mud/gravel road (katcha road). Thereafter 15 mts mud/gravel road. Later some extent CC road with 12 feet width for about 100 mts. There is a 6 feet road margin on both sides of the CC road and permanent open drainage on both sides. The said panchayath Raj road was going upto Peddipalem Village and after 150 mts., there is a mud/gravel road (katcha road). The extension of CC road was not completed till today through Survey No. 104/2 in Uttarkanchi Village of Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District.” 14) From the above report, it is very much clear that, buses plying from Kakinada to Peddipalem are passing through the road situated in Survey No. 104/2 and that the State Road Corporation is plying buses since many years. As per Village “A” Register, the land in Survey No.104/2 is shown as ‘Grama Kantam”. In-fact, the Report shows that the road is passing through the said land since 1927. A CC road was there for 20 meters from Village Center and, thereafter, 15 meters mud/gravel; later to some extent CC road with 12 feet width for about 100 meters. 15) Having regard to the above, it is clear that the averments in the counter, that only upgradation of the existing road is being done, cannot be brushed aside. There is no explanation as to why the Petitioner kept quiet, when a road was in existence and passing through his land since 1927, more so, when the said road is being used by State Road Transport Corporation since last 40 years, as per the Report of the Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu. 16) Taking into consideration the facts in issue and the material on record, it cannot be said that, (a) the Civil Court Decree, which is sought to be relied upon and (b) the Report of the Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu, which has been called for by this Court pursuant to the Order, dated 02.01.2020 in Contempt Case No. 156 of 2016, will come to the rescue of the Petitioner. 17) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the Petitioner to avail the remedy, if any, available under common law. No Order as to costs. 18) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.