THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No. 8326 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents, particularly, the 2nd respondent –Tahsildar, YSR Kadapa District in not preventing the 3rd respondent from constructing houses encroaching upon the road t an extent of 8 ft leading to the petitioner – Masjid inspite of the directions issued by the 1st respondent – Collector to that effect on 12.2.2011. Entertaining this writ petition on 29.3.2011, this court also directed the 3rd respondent from raising any construction by encroaching upon the public road in question. The 2nd respondent – Tahsildar, Thondur Mandal, has filed a detailed counter affidavit in the matter on behalf of the 1st respondent and himself. It is pointed out that the 3rd respondent was granted a house site patta on 30.9.2008, over land of an extent of 0.02 cts. She was also now granted permission for construction of a pucca house in the said land under the Indiramma Housing Scheme. When she was constructing the said house in accordance with grant made by the State Government, the present writ petition has been filed. Importantly, the Tahsildar has pointed out that the land of an extent of 60 cts belonging to the government was available in Sy. No. 615/B3 of the village. Out of this land, the local mosque was constructed in 12 cts of land. There is also a Urdu school constructed in 0.01 cts of land. There are also some other houses constructed and apart from a raastha and a vacant site, a total extent of 25½ cts of land is available. To the counter affidavit, a sketch showing the land in Sy. No. 615/B has been enclosed. From the said sketch, it becomes clear that the Masjid was constructed in 12 cts of land and on the road leading to Pulivendula to Muddanur. The Masjid is also got constructed shopping complex in land of an extent of 13 ft x 33 ft. The 3rd respondent is in fact making constructions in a site of 23 ft x 30 ft, which when measured would come only to 1 ½ cts of land, which is less than the 2 cts of land which is assigned to her. It is therefore clear that the 3rd respondent has not done anything wrong in constructing the building, in the land which was assigned in her favour by the State. This writ petition is therefore factually misconceived. Hence, it is dismissed duly vacating the injunction order granted by this court against the 3rd respondent on 29.3.2011. The hearing fee is fixed as Rs.500/- which the petitioner will either pay to the 3rd respondent directly by way of an account payee crossed demand draft or deposit the same within 15 days from today with the Registrar (Judicial) who in turn will dispatch it to the 3rd respondent. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 30th June 2011