THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR S.A.No.489 of 2010 and S.A.MP.Nos.1133 of 2010 and 2562 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (ON BEING MENTIONED) On 28.02.2011, when the vacate stay petition (S.A.MP.No.2562 of 2010) filed by the 1st respondent in the Second Appeal has come up for consideration, with the consent of both the counsel, the main Second Appeal No.489 of 2010 itself was taken up for hearing and the same was disposed of in the following terms: ““ Having heard both the counsels, the following order is made by consent. Admittedly, the house of the 1st defendant is in- between the drainage channel and the R & B Road. The main contention of the plaintiff is that the construction of the defendant No.1 is causing obstruction to his shops. It is also his case that no house site patta can be granted in the road margin area and even the Gram Panchayat can not permit the 1st defendant to construct in road margin. However, it is also an admitted fact that the 1st defendant has been assigned house site patta and that he was granted permission for construction by the Panchayat Authorities. However, the map filed by the Advocate Commissioner in Ex.C-14 and the Report of the Advocate Commissioner shows that there are other shops in the same line and also in the same lane, wherein, the house of the defendant No.1 is being constructed. So, if that is the case, it is for the Gram Panchayat Authorities and the Revenue Authorities to verify whether the constructions are made in the road margin or not. The Revenue Authorities should also verify whether the house site patta has been granted in the road margin area and if so whether it is valid. Normally, the house site patta should not be granted in the road margin area, causing inconvenience or obstruction to ingress or egress of the other persons, who are residing or who have shops adjoining the main road or in the lanes leading to the residential colonies. Having verified the entire record, it appears that the measurements were not taken by the surveyor basing on the records and survey maps, and, taking into consideration the width of the road and the width of the lanes etc, it appears that the matter requires further close examination. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pathikonda. Both the parties may adduce further evidence and, particularly, the Authorities are directed to enquire into the matter and adduce necessary evidence and to clarify whether the house site patta was assigned in the road margin area or not and to adduce necessary evidence before the Court enabling the lower Court to pass reasoned Judgment. The authorities are at liberty to take necessary steps as per lane. The concerned Authorities are directed to make a survey with necessary survey maps etc and file their additional written statement, if any, within three months from the date of receipt of this order and the lower Court is directed to dispose of the matter within six months thereof.” Though the main appeal has been disposed of on 28.02.2011, due to oversight, the judgment in the Second Appeal was typed as if it were an order passed in S.A.MP.No.1133 of 2010. Since the office has brought this fact to the notice of this Court pursuant to a letter filed by the learned Advocate for the 1st respondent, today the matter is listed under the caption ‘for being mentioned’. In view of the above, the order dated 28.2.2011 in S.A.MP.No.1133 of 2010 passed by this Court, which was dispatched by the Registry of this Court on 08.03.2011, shall be treated as the judgment rendered in the main Second Appeal No.489 of 2010. Ordered accordingly. ______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J 28th March, 2011. Note: Office is directed to mark copies of this judgment to the counsel on record and also respondent Nos.2 and 3. PNV