addition to her original allotted land and therefore a notice was given on 11-10-2002 to vacate the encroached portion but the same was not vacated by the writ petitioner so far. It is further stated that while so it seems the 2nd respondent filed a complaint against the writ petitioner before the Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) i.e., Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda complaining that the writ petitioner had encroached the road margin causing inconvenience to the traffic in front of their choultry. Accordingly on 1-10-2005 a notice was received from the office of the Lok Adalat to attend on 29-10-2005 for the enquiry sought to be conducted on the petition filed by the 2nd respondent. However a detailed report was submitted to the Lok Adalat about the encroachment made by the writ petitioner and the matter is under adjudication. In the said report, the 1st respondent had categorically stated that the encroachment made by the writ petitioner can only be evicted with the help of police as the writ petitioner is highly influential. Apart from this, the 1st respondent also categorically stated that the land under encroachment is Government poramboke i.e., high way road margin and therefore the Mandal Revenue Officer is the competent authority to take steps against the petitioner for eviction. Further specific stand is taken that the 1st respondent never went to the site of the petitioner nor had taken measurements. It is also stated that as the matter is seized by the Lok Adalat, the 1st respondent had not initiated any steps for eviction except issuing some notice way back in the year 2002. Further specific stand is taken that the encroachments will be cleared only by following the due process of law and not high-handedly as alleged by the petitioner. It is also further stated that immediately after the final disposal of the dispute pending before the Lok Adalat, action will be initiated in accordance with law for eviction of the encroachments made by the petitioner.
