ORDER : Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s: “to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of the respondents Nos. 3 to 10 as it is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14,19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India in not implementing the order dated 06.12.2021 and consequently prayed to direct the respondents to pay compensation as per prevailing market value and damages including the cost of litigation to the 1st Petitioner in respect of petitioners land being illegally has been encroached without following due process of Law by the respondents to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Sy.No.164/2 in Peruru Village, Amalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District (presently) Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District) and to pass such other order or orders….. 2. The Writ Petition is filed either to enforce the order of the 2 nd respondent-the District Collector, dated 06.12.2021, to remove the BT road and restore possession of the petitioners’ land, or to direct the respondents to provide compensation for an area of AC.0-05 cents of land in Survey No.164/2, situated in Peruru Village, Amalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, now within Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, that has been encroached upon by the respondent Nos.3 to 10. 3. Facts of the case, the petitioners asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the 1 st petitioner and his elder brother by name late Sri Kameswara Rao are the absolute owners of the land admeasuring Ac.0.19 cents each in Survey No.164/2, situated at Peruru village, Amalapuram Mandal, and the 1 st petitioner is in the possession of his share of land admeasuring Ac.0-095 cents and also looking after his brother’s share. During the Covid period, the respondent Nos.6 to 9 have encroached the 1 st petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in survey No.164/2 out of Ac.0-095 cents, initially laid red gravel road and later laid a B.T. road known as KANF road to Bodasakurru Bridge passing through Chintapallivaripalem of Peruru village, Amalapuram Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, without any notice, without following the due process of law and thereby they have encroached into the land of the 1 st petitioner. 4. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, without any notice, without following the due process of law and thereby they have encroached into the land of the 1 st petitioner. 4. The 1 st petitioner has approached the authorities to handover the portion of the land back to the 1 st petitioner which was encroached by the respondent Nos.3 to 10, as there is no response, the 2 nd petitioner who is the son of the 1 st petitioner herein, filed two online applications through Spandana (1) EAG20211026336, dated 26.10.2021 and EAG20220326632, dated 26.03.2023 respectively, requesting the authorities to handover the land which is encroached by the respondent Nos.3 to 10, by removing the B.T. road, to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents of land in survey No.164/2. 5. The 9 th respondent has addressed a letter vide reference No.Spandana/Peruru/A.E/Amalapuram/2021, dated 29.11.2021 to the 3 rd respondent to get the survey done immediately and to submit a report in respect of survey No.164/1, which is R&B land and Survey No.164/2, which is the 1 st petitioner’s land, as against the petitioners’ application through Spandana, dated 26.10.2021. The 2 nd respondent- District Collector, through proceedings dated 06.12.2021, in pursuance of the application made by the 2 nd petitioner, stated that the road laid in the petitioners’ land will be removed by the respondent Nos.3 to 10 after getting survey report from the respondent No.3. 6. The 1 st petitioner herein filed an application through application dated 07.01.2023 for joint survey report in respect of land in survey No.164/2 and the survey was conducted on 13.04.2023 and 3 rd respondent-Tahsildar clearly stated that out of total extent of Ac.0-19 cents in survey No.164/2 only Ac.0-14 cents were in the possession of the 1 st petitioner and the remaining Ac.0.05 cents a road was laid. It clearly indicates that an extent of Ac.0-05 cents in survey No.164/2 of the petitioner was encroached by the respondent Nos.5 to 10 and a BT road was laid without any notice, without any survey, without following due process of law. Therefore, the petitioners filed Writ Petition to direct the respondents either to deliver the land or to alternatively to pay compensation in lieu of the land under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as Act). 7. Therefore, the petitioners filed Writ Petition to direct the respondents either to deliver the land or to alternatively to pay compensation in lieu of the land under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as Act). 7. The 2 nd respondent-District Collector and the 7 th respondent- Executive Engineer, R&B Division, Amalapuram has filed their respective counter affidavits. However, both the counters indicates that the widening of the road from K.M. 0/0 to 3/120 was undertaken purely for public utility and the road width was increased from 3.75 meters to 5.00 meters by expanding on both sides from Peruru to Bodasakurru village. While trying to remove the BT road portion, the local people did not allowed the department to remove the BT portion as the road is very much needed for them, the local people also stated that the petitioner had not objected in past in which many of the villagers has lost their land during the formation of the road which was constructed by the Panchayat Raj Department long back. As such they are unable to remove the road and it is stated that there is no provision for payment of compensation in the expansion work. Additionally the 7 th respondent stated that a road was laid in one cent of land out of 0-03 cents of land. Except a variation in the extent of land, both the counters filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 7 are similar and admitted that the land in an extent of Ac. 0-05 cents is zeroyati land and belongs to the petitioners. 8. In the statement of the 7 th respondent it is stated that survey was conducted by the Revenue Department in the presence of the petitioners and a report was submitted to the 2 nd respondent-District collector, wherein it was stated that an extent of Ac.0-05 cents of land belonging to the petitioners was encroached and road was laid in the said land. When, the survey evidence is directly evident that an extent of Ac.0.05 cents was encroached, the counter of the 7 th respondent stating that an extent of Ac.0.03 cents was encroached by the R&B department is baseless. 9. When, the survey evidence is directly evident that an extent of Ac.0.05 cents was encroached, the counter of the 7 th respondent stating that an extent of Ac.0.03 cents was encroached by the R&B department is baseless. 9. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings, and learned standing counsel for ZPP MPP and Gram Panchayat. 10. Point for consideration: On careful reading of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the counters and arguments made by the counsels, it is the specific case of the petitioners that the respondent authorities have laid a road in an extent of Ac.0-05 cents in survey No.164/2 adjacent to the road of the R&B department in survey No.164/1. And the respondents have not disputed the encroachment and laying of road in the land in survey No.164/2 belongs to the petitioners. And it is the case of the respondents that they will hand over the property of the petitioner and it is further case of the respondents that there is no provision for payment of compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 11. Ours is a constitutional democracy and the rights available to the citizens are declared by the Constitution of India. Albeit Article 19(l)(f) was deleted by the Forty-fourth Amendment to the Constitution, Article 300-A has been placed Part III in the Constitution, which reads as follows: "300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law. No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." 12. The right against deprivation of property unless in accordance with procedure established by law, continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 13. The Apex court, in Vidya Devi Versus State of H.P. , 2020(2) SCC 569 , wherein it was observed:- that a citizen cannot be deprived of property without any legal sanction of law and could not have been forcibly dispossessed from the property without any legal sanction, and without following due process of law, and cannot deprive payment of just compensation. 14. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. 14. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Apex Court in [ Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC , (2013) 1 SCC 353 , wherein it was held that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution. 15. The Apex Court in [ State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar , (2011) 10 SCC 404 , held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as the right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multi faceted dimension. 16. The learned counsel representing for the petitioners stated that the land encroached severance is not possible, virtually lost as it is rendered inaccessible and uneconomical, due to construction of the road. This aspect also has to be taken into consideration and when it is found that in the event of the lands having become uncultivable, the respondents may consider acquiring the other extent of land beyond encroached land in question while exercising the power of eminent domain and award just compensation as per the applicable acquisition laws to the petitioners. 17. When restoring the part of land of the petitioners the respondents have to consider whether the petitioners have suffered from severance and whether they are entitled to any compensation for that, if so, to what extent. When it is found inaccessible and uneconomical, due to construction of the road the respondents have to ensure to acquire the total extent of Ac. 0.05 cents of land. 18. It is undisputed fact and the respondents have admitted that a BT road laid in the land belonging to the petitioners in an extent of Ac.0-05 cents. Since, the laying of road in the year 2000, the respondents are not able to provide any compensation or they have not removed the road laid in the land belongs to the petitioners herein. 19. Since, the laying of road in the year 2000, the respondents are not able to provide any compensation or they have not removed the road laid in the land belongs to the petitioners herein. 19. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are hereby directed to hand over the land to an extent of Ac.0-05 in Sy.No. 164/2 in Peruru village, Amalapuram Mandal, wherein a BT road was laid, within a period of three weeks from date of receipt of this order failing which the respondents are directed to pay compensation by following the due procedure of law by invoking the land acquisition proceedings as the petitioners cannot deprive the right to enjoy the property which is a constitutional and human right and the Supreme Court asserts the same in plethora of judgments referred above and it is needless to say that the land acquisition proceedings shall commence within a period of seven weeks from the date of this order. However, no costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.