THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.13550 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to issue writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to construct drainage line from his house i.e., D.No.12-30/C with assessment No.100010/02561 covered by S.No.38 Part, Krishnanagar, Vepagunta, Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam for free ﬂow of the drainage water and consequently to prevent health hazards from the stagnated drained water immediately. 2. It is stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the aforementioned two storied RCC slabbed house and has been residing in one of the portions. There is a lane to the southern side of his property, which is used for ingress and egress of the people residing behind the lane. Respondent No.3 is having a building adjacent to the said lane, who constructed an open drainage abutting to the petitioner’s compound wall. The petitioner got constructed a closed drain by laying underground pipes towards southern side of his property adjacent to his compound wall in three feet width of vacant space abutting his compound wall, which was left for his ingress and egress and for free ﬂow of the used water from his house. The underground drain constructed by the petitioner started choking due to rats and bandi coots thereby, the petitioner along with his family and neighbours are suffering from health hazards. So, in the year 2007, he approached respondent No.1 for permission to construct open drainage in the lane towards southern side of his property with his own funds by removing the underground pipes. After obtaining permission, the petitioner started construction of the open drain in the month of January, 2009 for which, respondent No.3 objected him and threatened him that he would demolish the drain if he constructs it. Though he made several complaints to respondent No.1, no action has been initiated. Respondent No.1 granted permission to construct the open drainage, but actually, it has to construct the same after giving estimation to the land owner and if land owner pays the estimated amount. The petitioner is ready to pay the amount to the Corporation. Inspite of several representations to the Municipal authorities, no action has been initiated. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Respondent No.1 ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit stating that respondent No.1 Corporation laid 6’-0” wide C.C. road and also constructed drain on one side i.e., abutting the house property of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3, without having any manner of right, is preventing the petitioner from constructing the open drain saying that the petitioner has not left even an inch of set back from the C.C. road. Respondent No.3 also did not leave any set backs from the existing C.C. road. Both the buildings were constructed during the Gram Panchayat Re g i m e . Inspite of several attempts, the wife of respondent No.3 behaved arrogantly. As soon as PLAC.No.692 of 2009 is disposed of by the District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam, action would be initiated in laying the drain on petitioner’s side. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have to approach the civil Court for declaration of title and that respondent No.3 has not left any set backs for the existing C.C. road and therefore, he prays to give a direction to respondents. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that both the petitioner and respondent No.3 encroached into the open drain abutting their respective properties without even leaving set backs and hence, appropriate decision would be taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to petitioner and respondent No.3. 6. None appeared for respondent No.3 inspite of service of notice. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 constructed drainage without leaving the setbacks. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 ﬁled their counter stating that both petitioner and respondent No.3 laid the open drain abutting the C.C. road without leaving set backs. That aspect has to be decided by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with law. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to take appropriate decision after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and respondent No.3 to give their explanation as to whether the constructions made by them are in accordance with the sanctioned plan or not within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 23rd November, 2011. Note:- Furnish C.C. within one week. B/O AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.13550 OF 2011 Date:23.11.2011 AMD