IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 4331 of 2009 Between: Bollipalli Sridevi W/o. Srinivasa Rao C/o. D.No.1-35-96, Naibrahmin Colony, Maruti Nagar, Guntur, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipal Corporation, rep. by Municipal Commissioner, Guntur Municipal corporation, Guntur District. 2 The Town Planning Officer, Municipal Corporation, Guntur, Guntur District. 3 The District Collector, Guntur, Guntur District. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 6 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddakakani Mandal, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the inaction of the respondent No.6 and pleased to direct the 6th respondent to implement the order of the 4th respondent dated 5.7.2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SRICHARAN TELAPROLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.4331 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner has encroached the road margin of abutting Municipal School, Guntur district. She has been evicted some time in June, 2008. The petitioner approached the District Legal Services Authority complaining her forcible eviction. The matter was referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur district, fourth respondent herein. The latter issued proceedings in R.C.No.1046 of 2008-A dated 30.6.2008 to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddakakani mandal, Guntur district, the sixth respondent herein, suggesting that the case of the petitioner may be considered for allotment of house site to an extent of 160 sq.yards in any rural area within the jurisdiction, depending on her eligibility. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken in pursuance of the proceedings dated 30.6.2008. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Even from a perusal of the proceedings dated 30.6.2008, it becomes clear that the petitioner has encroached the road margin and she has been evicted. The Government has undertaken various schemes for providing house sites to the eligible persons. The fourth respondent had taken note of the factum of eviction of the petitioner and requested the sixth respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and another. When the Government itself is providing house sites almost on a war-footing, there is no reason why the petitioner is not extended the benefit, that too, when specifically recommended by the fourth respondent. Hence the writ petition is disposed of, directing the sixth respondent to take necessary steps on the basis of the proceedings dated 30.6.2008 addressed by the fourth respondent, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 6.8.2009 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.4331 of 2009 6.8.2009