Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 283 (TS)

Athkuri Vijay v. State of Telangana

2025-04-09

T.MADHAVI DEVI

body2025
ORDER : (T. MADHAVI DEVI, J.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representations/complaints dt.08.01.2024, 19.04.2024 and 20.04.2024 and to remove the encroachments made by the 5 th respondent on the common public road/ Bandi Daari (cart track) leading from Esojipet Village to Minpur Village via Koduru Village passing through Survey Nos.213, 214, 254, 260, 262, 259, 299, 300, 301, 306, 312, 313, 316 and 317 of Koduru Village, Pulkal Mandal, Sangareddy District and to restore the common public road in accordance with law and to pass such other order or orders. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.2.24 guntas in Survey No.214 situated at Koduru Village, Pulkal Mandal, Sangareddy District, having inherited the same and the name of the petitioner is also recorded in the revenue records and he has been issued TD-cum-e.passbook. It is submitted that the subject property is situated by the side of the common public road/ Bandi Daari (cart track) leading from Esojipet Village to Minpur Village via Koduru Village and the said public road is classified as Bandi Daari (cart track) in the revenue records/ village maps/ Naksha, etc., and the width of the Bandi Daari (cart track) is about 8 metres and the same is being used by the petitioner and his neighbouring land owners from decades to have access to their lands. It is submitted that the said track is the only way to reach the petitioner’s land. It is submitted that the 5 th respondent, who is his neighbouring land owner, encroached the said Bandi Daari (cart track) and thus blocked the right of way and ingress and egress of the petitioner to the subject property. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted representations dt.08.01.2024, 19.04.2024 and 20.04.2024 for removal of the encroachments, but no action has been taken by the official respondents and therefore, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have filed their respective counters along with relevant documents. 4. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted representations dt.08.01.2024, 19.04.2024 and 20.04.2024 for removal of the encroachments, but no action has been taken by the official respondents and therefore, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have filed their respective counters along with relevant documents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 58(1) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, all public roads in any village, other than National Highways, State Highways and roads vesting in Zilla Praja Parishad or Mandal Praja Parishad, shall vest in the Gram Panchayat together with all pavements, stones and other materials thereof, all works, materials and other things provided therefor, all sewers, drains, drainage works, tunnels and culverts, whether made at the cost of the Gram Panchayat fund or otherwise, in alongside or under such roads, and all works, materials and things appertaining thereto and the proviso thereunder provides that the Gram Panchayat shall take steps to remove encroachments on, and prevent un- authorized use of, any road, other than a National Highway passing through the Gram Panchayat. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there is a cart track leading from Esojipet Village to Minpur Village via Koduru Village passing through various survey numbers of the Village and adjacent to the lands of the petitioner as well as the 5 th respondent and various other lands of the village, the Gram Panchayat, i.e., the 4 th respondent ought to have taken cognizance of the complaints of the petitioner and ought to have taken action thereon. 5. He further submitted that Section 92 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act provides for removal of encroachments by the Gram Panchayat. As regards the contention of the 4 th respondent that the alleged cart track is not a public road, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the definition of ‘public road’ under Section 2(34) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act to mean “any street, road, square, Court, alley, passage and includes the roadway over any public bridge or cause- way, the footway attached to any such road, public bridge or cause-way, and the drains attached to any such road, public bridge or cause-way.” He submitted that ‘cart way’ also falls within the definition of ‘public road’. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and Section 2 thereof to submit that all public roads and streets vested in local authority shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the property of the Government. 7. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317-F to submit that all public roads, lanes, paths, bridges, etc., are the property of the Government. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that the cart track leading from Esojipet Village to Minpur Village via Koduru Village is shown in the village map and therefore, it is a public road and public officials are required to see that there are no encroachments on the said road. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (as it then was) in the case of Koganti Venkata Suryanarayana Vs. The State of A.P. rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and others in support of his contention that public roads are to be safeguarded by the authorities. 9. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue has referred to the averments made by the 3 rd respondent in his counter affidavit to submit that there existed a Bandi Daari (cart track) leading from Esojipet Village to Minpur Village via Koduru Village and the same is passing through Survey Nos.212, 213, 214, 254, 260, 316, 315, 313, 312 and 306 and the same was being used by the farmers and neighbouring land owners to have access to their lands and for taking carts for agricultural operations. It is submitted that the 5 th respondent and other land owners have blocked the cart track and it is completely under cultivation. It is further submitted that action is being taken to remove the encroachments from the cart track after harvesting the paddy crops which existed in the above survey number lands. It is submitted that the 5 th respondent and other land owners have blocked the cart track and it is completely under cultivation. It is further submitted that action is being taken to remove the encroachments from the cart track after harvesting the paddy crops which existed in the above survey number lands. Enclosed to the counter affidavit is the letter addressed by the Mandal Surveyor to the Tahsildar, Pulkal Mandal, wherein it is confirmed that on field verification with the village map, it is found that there is a Bandla Bata (cart track) passing through Survey Nos.212, 213, 214, 254, 260, 315, 312, 313, 316, 306, but not passing through Survey Nos.299, 262 and 307 and that the Bandla Bata has been encroached and it is completely under cultivation. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue therefore submits that necessary action has to be taken by the authorities for removal of the encroachments on the cart track. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, i.e., the 4 th respondent has submitted that the alleged cart track leading from Esojipet Village to Minpur Village via Koduru Village is not in existence for the past 40 years and further that the Panchayat Secretary is not the competent authority for the encroachments in the fields. It is further submitted that there is a title dispute between the petitioner herein and the unofficial respondent, i.e., the 5 th respondent which is the genesis for this Writ Petition. 11. The 5 th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit stating that the alleged Bandi Daari which is about 8 metres width is not in public use for the last 40 years in view of laying of public road adjacent to the land of the neigbour of the petitioner and Survey No.262, i.e., the road leading from Taddanpally to Singur. A copy of the Google map is also filed to demonstrate the same. Thus, according to him, there is no public road and therefore, Section 58(1) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act is not applicable in this case. Along with the memo dt.06.01.2025, Google maps of relevant area are also filed by the 5 th respondent. 12. A copy of the Google map is also filed to demonstrate the same. Thus, according to him, there is no public road and therefore, Section 58(1) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act is not applicable in this case. Along with the memo dt.06.01.2025, Google maps of relevant area are also filed by the 5 th respondent. 12. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that admittedly, there was a cart track leading from Esojipet Village to Minpur Village via Koduru Village and the same is reflected in the village map. The 3 rd respondent has also confirmed the same and it is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is having land in Survey No.214 of Koduru Village and the said cart track was passing alongside the same. It is also an admitted fact that the said cart track is not in existence now due to encroachments by the neighbouring land owners. 13. Whether ‘cart track’ can be called as a ‘public road’ is an issue which needs consideration. Under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317-F, all public roads, lanes, paths, bridges, ditches, dikes, rivers, streams, tanks, ponds, canals, lakes, flowing water and all lands, wherever situated, together with all rights appertaining thereto are the property of the Government except those belonging to persons or class legally capable of holding property and to the extent so far as their such rights are established and those in respect of which any other order under any law may have been given. The word ‘paths’ though has not been defined under the Act, its dictionary meaning is ‘a way or track laid down for walking or made by continual treading.’ Therefore, any path which has been laid down either for walk or for treading of animals, i.e., for carts is also a path and is the property of the Government. In the Rules under Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Boundaries Act, 1923 laying down the principles in the field survey demarcation of foot-paths and cart tracks, it is provided that where a cart track is indicated in any old document or record, the maximum extent of 10 feet width (3.04 metres) shall be indicated as a cart track in the survey record and a distinct indication should be made between a foot-path and cart track. If the cart track passes entirely through the field of a single owner that owner has to leave the entire cart track of 10 feet width (3.04 metres). In case it passes between the fields of two different owners, each owner has to leave 5 feet width (1.5 metres) for purpose of cart track. This itself indicates that the foot-paths and cart tracks are also recognized as paths for the purpose of public roads and therefore, it is the bounden duty of the concerned authorities to safeguard the same and remove the encroachments of such paths. The 4 th respondent may not be the authority to protect or remove the encroachments on cart tracks as the agricultural land would not come within the jurisdiction of the 4 th respondent. The 2 nd and 3 rd respondents being revenue authorities are the custodians of all public roads. When the petitioner and other villagers have given representations to the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents against the encroachment of the subject cart track by the 5 th respondent and others, they ought to have taken action against the same. However, as per the undertaking given by the 3 rd respondent in his counter affidavit filed in the present Writ Petition that the encroachments would be removed after harvesting of paddy crops, this Court direct respondents 2 and 3 to take immediate action accordingly and remove the encroachments and re-establish the subject cart track in accordance with the rules under Section 26 of Andhra Pradesh Boundaries Act, 1923. 14. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. 15. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.