THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23355 of 2010 Dated 01st February, 2011 Between: Mohd.Abdul Karim and another …Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Venkata Siva Prasad For Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in stopping the unauthorised construction on Darga Road, near Bus Stand, Pahadi Shareef, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.2. The petitioners claim to be the residents of Pahadi Shareef. Their grievance is that respondent No.3 has been unauthorisedly constructing a building by encroaching the public road. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.2-Gram Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that on 13.09.2010, respondent No.3 made an application to the Gram Panchayat for permission for construction of residential house in his land admeasuring 75 sq.yards at Darga Road, that when the said application was pending the District Panchayat Officer in his proceedings, dated 09.10.2010, directed respondent No.2 to permit construction by respondent No.3 by leaving 3 feet setback as per Rules and that the said direction was given in pursuance of the complaint given by one Smt.Fathima Begum, MPTC, Pahadi Shareef. It is further averred that the petitioner herein and seven other residents filed W.P.No.22218 of 2010 questioning the proposed construction by respondent No.3, that in the said writ petition, this Court passed order, dated 17.09.2010, directing the official respondents therein to take steps to prevent unauthorised constructions by respondent No.3, that in pursuance of the said direction, respondent No.2 sought for clarification from the District Panchayat Officer on 03.09.2010 and that the latter vide his proceedings, dated 07.10.2010, has directed respondent No.2 to comply with the order, dated 04.10.2010, of the Deputy Collector and Zonal Officer, HMDA, whereby he has directed Panchayat Officer to take necessary action to stop encroachment. That in pursuance of the said direction, respondent No.2 instructed respondent No.3 not to proceed with the construction of residential house and respondent No.3 has stopped construction. It is further stated that the petitioners and respondent No.3 are political adversaries and that respondent No.2 is taking effective steps to see that respondent No.3 will not construct building without leaving 3 feet setback as per the Rules. From the above-noted averments, this Court is convinced that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have taken proper and effective measures to prevent alleged illegal construction by respondent No.3. For the above-mentioned reasons, no further orders need be passed in the writ petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.29876 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st February, 2011 VGB