THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30960 of 2010 Date:01.02.2011 Between: Palanati Venkata Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5: Sri P. Raghavendra Reddy standing counsel for Gram Panchayats Counsel for Respondent No.6: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.2 to 5 to take steps for removing the encroachment/structure made by respondent No.6 on public road vested in respondent No.4 Gram Panchayat by declaring the inaction of respondent No.2 to 5 in taking steps for moving the encroachment as illegal. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.6, who is the neighbour of the petitioner, has encroached four feet lane by constructing a structure (pial) making it difficult for the petitioner to reach his house. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the inaction of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in removing the unauthorized structure. On behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.4 Gram Panchayat filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it i s inter alia stated that the petitioner and respondent No.6 have two approach roads to their respective houses. He has denied the allegation that respondent No.6 has constructed a four feet wide structure on the public passage. He further averred that his physical verification of the house revealed that no fresh construction activity is undertaken by respondent No.6 and that in the reply to the notice issued by respondent No.4 on the petitioner’s representation, respondent No.6 has given a reply on 21.10.2010, wherein it is stated that no tiles are being laid and that the tractor is being parked only during lunch time and whenever there is no work and that the same is not causing any obstruction to free flow of traffic. It is further stated that the lane is of 12 feet width and that even if the tractor is parked, the left over lane is enough for the petitioner to reach his house conveniently. No reply-affidavit is filed controverting the abovementioned averments. In the light of the stand taken by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in their counter-affidavit, I do not find any reason to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.39385 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st February, 2011 GHN