THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.18649 of 2006 BETWEEN: Polamarasetty Srinivasa Rao, PETITIONER And 1. The Commissioner, Anakapalle Municipality, Anakapalle (PO), Visakhapatnam District, and another. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Ms. T.V. Sridevi Counsel for the respondent No.1: Sri S. Nageswara Reddy Counsel for the respondent No.2: G.P. for R & B The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. The petitioner, an occupant of an extent of 10’-6” x 7’–0” sq. feet of site apparently situated on the road side, has filed this writ petition challenging the notice dated 23.08.2006 issued by the 1st respondent calling upon him to remove the encroachment, as illegal. The petitioner claims to have purchased a tiled house bearing D.No.12-4-75/1 situated in Pudimadaka Road, Anakapalle, under a registered document dated 3.06.1998. He states that he constructed a pucca RCC building on the said site and the same is assessed to property tax. The 1st respondent has issued the impugned notice to the petitioner treating him as an encroacher. Complaining that the 1st respondent has no authority to issue the impugned notice, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. A perusal of the impugned notice shows that the petitioner has occupied the site which is situated on the Pudimadaka Road. The 1st respondent in its counter affidavit has stated that the petitioner has not constructed the building as per the plan but encroached in T.S.No.738/P, which is classified as public road. The 2nd respondent has filed a separate counter stating that notices were issued to all the occupants including the petitioner on 23.08.2006 asking them to remove the encroachments, and a further notice dated 24.08.2006 was also issued calling upon the occupants including the petitioner to attend the meeting scheduled on 29.08.2006 to enlist their cooperation. The petitioner attended the said meeting and agreed to remove the encroachments. In so far as all other occupants numbering about 28 have removed the encroachments voluntarily but in so far as the petitioner is concerned he has rushed to this Court an filed this writ petition. Even though the petitioner seeks to justify his occupation stating that he has purchased the site, no convincing material is placed before this Court. The 1st respondent has categorically stated that the petitioner has encroached the portion covered in T.S.No.738/P which has been classified as public road, but the same has not been controverted by the petitioner. The petitioner has not placed any relevant material at least prima facie to show that the subject site has not been encroached upon. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 3rd February, 2011 Js.