THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.9925 OF 2005 14th December 2009 Between: Gopaluni Mahalakshmamma. …PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Municipalities, Narasaraopet Municipality, Narasaraopet, Guntur District and two others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.9925 OF 2005 ORDER: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to dispose of his representations dated 20.10.2003, 27.01.2004, 21.02.2005 and 21.03.2005 and consequentially, directing the respondents to remove the encroachments made in T.S.No.759, D.No.444-B, New Ward No.13, Ramireddypet area, Narasaraopet Municipality, Guntur District. The case of the petitioner is that the deceased husband of the petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.0.30 cents and 207 square feet under a registered sale deed dated 27.07.1950 from its earlier vendor and possessor. It is stated that in the registered sale deed towards the northern side of the property sold to the petitioner’s husband, 20 feet was shown as left for road purpose. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the road is occupied to an extent of five feet, but the respondents have not taken any action, in spite of the representations referred to above. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is stated that vide letter No.978/2005/G1, dated 02.07.2005, the site under reference is only a part of land left by the private persons, who have shown it as road portion in this document only. It is, further, stated that the site under reference is not shown as a road under any survey records, approved layout and sanctioned Master Plan of Narasaraopet Municipality. The respondents also denied the receipt of any such representations from the petitioner. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the disputed area is not a road at all. Except referring to document by which the deceased husband of the petitioner purchased the property showing 20 feet of the area as road towards northern side of the property, there is no other material placed before this Court to show that a road existed towards the northern side of the land of the petitioner. In view of the averments in the counter affidavit and in the absence of showing the said piece of land, as a road covered by any approved layout, no action can be taken by respondents 1 to 3. If any condition is violated, it is for the petitioner to sue her vendors, but no directions can be given by way of a Mandamus. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) 14th December 2009 RRB