THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 22465 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted seeking q writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not taking action pursuant to the representation dated 28-06-2011 made by the petitioner and other residents of the area about the illegal construction of the 3rd respondent at premises bearing No.D.No.17/191, Nadimpally street, Proddutur town, YSR District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner is a resident of premises bearing H.No.17/92, Nadimpalli street, Proddutur town, Y.S.R. District, situated in 13 ½’ width lane, adjacent to the main road of Nadimpalli street, at the end of the lane. There are 14 houses inside the lane. While so, the 3rd respondent without taking any permission, started construction of four storied building at his premises situated at the entrance of the said lane without leaving set backs and on the other hand, encroached into a part of the lane. Therefore, the petitioner, along with others, made a representation dated 28-06-2011, to the 1st respondent bringing to his notice about illegal construction of the 3rd respondent due to which the width of the road is reduced from 13 ½’ to 5 ½’. Therefore, he sought direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the illegal construction of the 3rd respondent in the subject premises. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit while admitting the receipt of representation dated 28-06-2011, made by the petitioner and others, denied the inaction of their part. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent obtaining permission for G+1 floor, made illegal construction by constructing other floors and to that effect, they issued provisional order, dated 14-03-2011, under Section 217 (1) and 217 (2) of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for brevity ‘the Act’), directing him to stop the work immediately. Further as there was no response from the 3rd respondent, they also issued confirmation notice against him under Section 217 (3) of the Act and again issued notice under Section 228 (1) and 228 (2) and confirmation order under Section 228 (3) of the Act. In spite of that since the 3rd respondent did not respond, they filed a charge sheet in the local Court against him. Hence, there is no inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2. 4. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit denying all the averments made in the affidavit. It is stated that lane is not having 13 1/3’ width and that he has not encroached 5 ½’ width as alleged by the petitioner. In fact, the road is only 8 ½’ width. The 1st respondent sanctioned permission in his favour for construction of new house in place of existing house and therefore, he has not made any illegal construction. The petitioner having personal grudge against him, filed this writ petition, hence, the same may be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and perused the record. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 3rd respondent made illegal constructions by encroaching the road, but no action has been taken by the respondents 1 and 2 in spite of representation dated 28-06-2011 and hence, he prays to issue direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the 3rd respondent. 7. The learned Government Pleader for R-1 and R-2, contended that the 3rd respondent has got a building permission from the Municipal Corporation and as he did not respond to the notice, charge sheet was already filed before the concerned Magistrate Court, hence, there is no inaction on the part of the Municipal Corporation. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent contended that the building was constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is having a permission for construction of building with G+1 vide proceedings dated 08-12-2009, but he made constructions by encroaching the public road by raising a wall to the extent of 2’ 3”. To that effect, the Municipality issued a provisional order under Section 217 (1) and 217 (2) of the Act, to the 3rd respondent. So, in view of the fact that the 3rd respondent has encroached public road to the extent of 2’3” by raising compound wall, the 1st respondent shall take immediate steps for removal of the said wall after following due process of law. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ 22nd December 2011 JUSTICE K.C.BHANU kvr