ORDER : HARINATH.N, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondents 1 to 3 in forming a road in the private patta land owned by the petitioner in an extent of Ac.3.40 cents situated in Sy.Nos.101/7, 101/8, 101/12, 101/19, 101/22 and 101/27 of Kurumanapalem, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District without acquiring the land of the petitioner. 2. Sri.N.Subba Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities in levelling the private land belonging to the petitioner and proposing to lay a road without following the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparence in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is an illegal and highhanded action on part of the respondent authority. The petitioner inherited land in Sy.No.101 and further sub-divisions admeasuring Ac.3.40 cents from his father. 3. It is submitted that certain portion of land in Sy.No.101 was purchased by one Ms.P.Padmavathi under different sub-divisions and sold plots by forming an unauthorized layout. The persons who purchased plots filed OS.Nos.22 of 2015, 23 of 2015, 24 of 2015, 25 of 2015, 60 of 2015 and 61 of 2015 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. The Court has ordered statusquo to be maintained. 4. It is submitted that the officials of 2 nd respondent have proposed to lay a link road through the patta land of the petitioner, on request of the purchasers of the plots in the unauthorized layout, the respondent authorities highhandedly leveled the land belonging to the petitioner. An Advocate Commissioner was also appointed on an application by the petitioner and the Commissioner conducted the survey and submitted the report. The surveyor report categorically held that the land where the road is proposed to be laid is a private patta land. The petitioner submitted a complaint on 31.07.2023 notifying the 2 nd respondent that they could not have proceeded further with the proposed road without following the due process of law. 5. It is submitted that unmindful of the documents submitted by the petitioner, the respondent authorities commenced laying the road. Learned senior counsel further submits that the respondent authorities could not have resorted to laying the road without acquiring the petitioner’s land or compensating the petitioner for the land which was required for laying of the road. 6. 5. It is submitted that unmindful of the documents submitted by the petitioner, the respondent authorities commenced laying the road. Learned senior counsel further submits that the respondent authorities could not have resorted to laying the road without acquiring the petitioner’s land or compensating the petitioner for the land which was required for laying of the road. 6. Learned standing counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent submits that the respondents 2 and 3 have filed a detailed counter and submits that the land which is subject of the claim of the petitioner is shown as Government land (poramboke) in Mee- Bhoomi portal and as there was an existing gravel road, the respondent corporation laid a cement road on the request of the owners of the plots. It is denied that the respondent authorities have not laid any road on the land of the petitioner. Paras 8 and 9 of the counter indicate the stand of the respondent authorities. 7. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and Assistant Government Pleader for the State. Perused the material on record. 8. It is the claim of the petitioner that respondent authorities have laid a cement road over the land belonging to the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities could not have laid a cement road over the patta land belonging to the petitioner without following the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparence in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 9. It is the stand of the respondent corporation that soon after receipt of the complaint of the petitioner on 31.07.2023, the petitioner was called upon to furnish all the relevant documents relating to the title and ownership of the land in Sy.No.101 by the petitioner within two days. It is also submitted that the petitioner did not submit any documents within two days of receipt of the notice. It is also the stand of the corporation that there was an existing gravel road, over which the respondent authorities laid a cement road. 10. It is also the stand of the corporation that land in Sy.No.101 is shown as Government land (poramboke) and as such the road was laid. It is also the stand of the corporation that there was an existing gravel road, over which the respondent authorities laid a cement road. 10. It is also the stand of the corporation that land in Sy.No.101 is shown as Government land (poramboke) and as such the road was laid. Considering all these issues, there is a reference to the report of the Advocate Commissioner in the pleadings which indicate that land in Sy.No.101 is a private patta land and that the Advocate Commissioner’s report is also filed as an annexure to the writ petition. The respondents have not denied or disputed the report of the Advocate Commissioner. It is also not disputed by the Corporation that no land was acquired for laying the road. 11. Existence of a gravel road which was used for ingress and egress by the plot owners cannot be the basis for laying a cement road over it without ascertaining the ownership of the said land. The petitioner has submitted a representation on 31.07.2023 duly notifying the respondent authorities of his right, title and interest over the land over which a CC road was proposed to be laid. Without passing any orders on the representation of the petitioner, the respondent corporation presumed the ownership of the land and classified it as poramboke and completed laying of the road. 12. The said notice which is referred to in the counter which was allegedly issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to submit the relevant documents showing the ownership of the petitioner over the said property is not produced before this Court. 13. Be that as it may, the respondent authorities have laid a road over the land over which the petitioner claims ownership. The said road was laid without acquiring the land. The petitioner to submit the copies of the title documents to the 2 nd respondent. The 2 nd respondent shall depute the Town Surveyor for determining the extent of land over which the road was laid. The respondents 1 to 4 are hereby directed to determine the extent of land belonging to the petitioner which is affected in laying of a road and determine the compensation due payable to the petitioner in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparence in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The compensation so determined shall be paid to the petitioner. The compensation so determined shall be paid to the petitioner. At any rate, the entire process shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off with the above direction. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.