THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22151 of 2010 Dated 28th February, 2011 Between: Jagadisha Surya Varaprasada Raju …Petitioner And The District Collector, West Godavari District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D.Seshashayana Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri Raju For Sri G.Elisha Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri S.Subba Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in restraining respondent No.4 from making constructions in setback areas of 1½ meter width open to sky on the front side of his building as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pull down the construction made by respondent No.4. I have heard Sri D.Seshashayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing respondent Nos.1 & 2, Sri Raju, learned counsel, representing Sri G.Elisha, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3, and Sri S.Subba Reedy, learned counsel representing respondent No.4. The petitioner and respondent No.4 are residents of Oddurivari Veedi, Ganapavaram Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 has encroached into a public street and raised construction thereon. In support of this plea, the petitioner has filed two photographs, which show that respondent No.4 has extended his building at least by one foot beyond the building alignment in the street, apart from constructing the staircase on to the road. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that the construction raised by respondent No.4 is in accordance with the sanctioned plan and that on 30.06.2010, he has personally visited the premises and instructed him to make constructions according to the sanctioned plan. As the photographs filed along with the writ petition prima facie indicate encroachment of the public street by respondent No.4, apart from existence of staircase on the street, this Court has directed respondent Nos.3 and 4 to show cause as to why orders for their prosecution shall not be passed. Today, at the hearing, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 have made their submissions on instructions from their respective clients. They have also presented a few photographs before this Court, which are taken on file. A perusal of the said photographs shows that the two steps, which were constructed to provide access to the shop room of respondent No.4, have been removed. When this Court has expressed that the construction made by respondent No.4 is beyond the building alignment in the street, Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4, has stated that his client is proposing to remove that part of the structure, which is beyond the alignment. Respondent No.3, being the trustee of the public interest, is under obligation to ensure that the structures raised in violation of the sanctioned plan and by encroaching the public streets are removed. Inasmuch as it is quite obvious that the structure raised by respondent No.4 is beyond the building alignment of the street, he is permitted to remove that part of the structure within a period of two months from today. If respondent No.4 fails to remove the structure within the stipulated time, respondent No.3 shall remove the same without any notice to respondent No.4 to ensure that respondent No.4’s premises falls in the building alignment of the street. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.28222 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th February, 2011 VGB