Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, and the relief sought is identical, this Court is inclined to pass the following ORDER : 1. For convenience of the Court the facts in W.P.No.22035/2020 taken into consideration for rendering this order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of the vacant land to an extent of Ac.0.3½ cents situated in D.No.287 of Munugodu Village, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District having acquired the same through a registered gift deed dated 08.08.2019. Since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. 3. While so, the Respondent Nos.5 to 7 highhandedly taking steps for laying road through the petitioner’s subject land without following due process of law and without observing the principles of natural justice. Hence the writ petition. 4. On the other hand respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat, filed counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated as under: “2. It is submitted that I have joined as a Panchayat Secretary to this gram panchayat on 07.06.2018. While I am working as such I went on leave for 3 days i.e., from 24.07.2019 to 26.07.2019. during my absence one Sri B. Srinivasa Rao, Panchayat Secretary of Attaluru was given incharge to the gram panchayat. He being the inchrage of the gram panchayat, issued the declaration certificate (possession certificate) dated 26.07.2019 in favour of the father of the petitioner. On 24.07.2019 he has also given the similar certificate in favour of Shaik Barakath Bee. Basing on this certificate the said Barakath Bee executed the registered gift deed dated 24.07.2019 wherein boundaries mentioned as East: Panchayat road (which is the present subject matter), South: Shaik Mastan Valli and others, West: Shaik Chinna Moulali site, North: Ganapareddy site. Contrary to the said boundaries the incharge secretary having colluded with the petitioner and his donor had issued the possession certificate 26.07.2019 for the site to an extent of Ac.0.3 ½ cents including the road by showing the boundaries on Western side is the Shaik Moulali site. It is pertinent to mention here that the Panchayat Secretary has no authority or power to issue the possession certificate. In fact as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.546, dated 30.06.1997 the Tahsildar is alone competent to issue the possession certificate in the Panchayatsite that too only after physical inspection. It is pertinent to mention here that the Panchayat Secretary has no authority or power to issue the possession certificate. In fact as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.546, dated 30.06.1997 the Tahsildar is alone competent to issue the possession certificate in the Panchayatsite that too only after physical inspection. Hence, the petitioner got the registration of the gift deed basing on the invalid possession certificate issued by the incharge panchayat secretary, thereby the alleged gift deed is null and void. 3. It is submitted that to avoid the litigations pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.546, the District Collector as well as the District Panchayat Officer of the Guntur District categorically directed the officers concerned not to issue the possession certificate over the panchayat site (gramakantam) except the Tahsildar/Revenue Officer concerned. Hence, the registered documents produced by the petitioner is not valid in the eye of law. It is pertinent to mention here that there is a existing panchayat road. The petitoner by colluding with the incharge panchayat secretary got the possession certificate over the panchayat road and got registered the sites on his name and now alleging that the gram panchayat laying the road through his private site. 5. It is submitted that the site to an extent of Ac.0.03 ½ cents in D.No.287 which is alleged to have been succeeded by virtue of the registered gift deed which was registered basing on the illegal possession certificate given by the incharge panchayat secretary. The petitioner or his donor never been in possession of the panchayat site as mentioned in the invalid document. Moreover, the possession certificates given by the incharge panchayat secretary to the individuals are in self-contradictor. In one certificate he himself mentioned on Eastern site as Panchayat road and in the present subject site certificate he mentioned on Western site Ganapa Chandra Sekhar Reddy and others. It clearly shows that without conducting physical verification issued the certificates for his personal benefits. Hence, the document basing on which the petitioner is claiming the house site and for which the present writ petition is filed is not maintainable. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy cause for creating the false documents and filing the present writ petition with false and baseless allegations.” 5. Learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat submits that either the petitioner or his predecessors never in possession of the subject property. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy cause for creating the false documents and filing the present writ petition with false and baseless allegations.” 5. Learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat submits that either the petitioner or his predecessors never in possession of the subject property. On the other hand the alleged title deed said to have been executed in favour of the petitioner basing upon the possession certificate issued by the then Panchayat Secretary in favour of vendor of the petitioner. As per G.O.Ms.No.546, dated 30.06.1997 the possession certificates in respect of any vacant site should be issued by the concerned Tahsildar but not by the Panchayat Secretary. As such, the vendor of the petitioner did not get any rights over the subject property. In the absence of any right accrued to the donor, he cannot transfer or alienate the subject property in favour of the petitoner by way of any title deed. It is further stated that the respondents laid the CC road on the existing Panchayat road only, as such the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel or the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent – Gram Panchayat and on perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the petitioner acquired the subject property by way of a registered gift deed said to have been executed by his brother. The donor claiming title acquired through his ancestors but not revealed under which document the same was acquired. It is further observed that the petitioner has been claiming the possession and enjoyment of the subject property pursuant to the title deed since 08.08.2019. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, no authority can interfere or took over the possession of the property without following due process of law but in the instant case the respondents already laid road without issuing any notice or without following any due procedure as contemplated is the merit submission and in accordance with law. 7. As stated by the respondent – Gram Panchayat in its counter-affidavit, the subject registered gift deed said to have been executed by the brother of the petitioner on the strength of possession certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary is not a valid document. As per G.O.Ms.No.546, dated 30.06.1997 the concerned Tahsildar is competent authority for issuance of possession certificate. 7. As stated by the respondent – Gram Panchayat in its counter-affidavit, the subject registered gift deed said to have been executed by the brother of the petitioner on the strength of possession certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary is not a valid document. As per G.O.Ms.No.546, dated 30.06.1997 the concerned Tahsildar is competent authority for issuance of possession certificate. Therefore, the possession certificate which is the basis for claiming rights over the subject property either by the petitioner or by the donor of the petitioner is not legally valid. It is further stated that either the petitioner or his donor never in possession of the subject property is not overturned by the petitioner by filing any reply or any evidence before this Court. It is settled proposition of law that Nemo dat quod non habet a person cannot transfer the right more than what he has. Even assuming the alleged possession certificate is valid, but it won’t create any right of alienation in favour of the holder of the certificate, in the absence of any right of alienation what-so-ever. Therefore, in view of the settled principles of law, this Court is inclined to hold that petitioner is not valid titleholder. 8. Even assuming the alleged possession certificate is valid, but it won’t create any right of alienation in favour of the holder of the certificate, in the absence of any right of alienation what-so-ever. Therefore, in view of the settled principles of law, this Court is inclined to hold that petitioner is not valid titleholder. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, this Court is of the considered view that these Writ Petitions can be disposed of directing the Respondent Nos.5 to 7 in W.P.No.22035/2020 to conduct survey and demarcation with the active assistance and help of the Tahsildar, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District with referring to revenue records as well as gift deed holding by the petitioner herein by following due process of law and as per the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after completion of such survey and demarcation, if it is found that any portion of the petitioner’s land has been occupied for the purpose of laying the road by the 5 th Respondent, as admitted in the counter-affidavit and written instructions dated 24.09.2025 filed in W.P.No.21401 of 2025, the respondents are directed to initiate appropriate proceedings either to acquire the said portion of land under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013, (Act 30 of 2013) or to restore the same to the petitioner within a period of three (03) months thereafter. 9. With the above directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any shall stand closed.