THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 24811 of 2007 O r d e r: The petitioners claim that they belong to Scheduled Caste. They were assigned D-Form pattas in an extent of 0.03 cents each in Sy. No. 174-7B1, H.T. Halli village, Rolla Mandal, in the year 1981. While so, respondent No.1, namely the District Collector/Executive Director of A.P. Housing Corporation, Anantapur, sanctioned ten houses under Indira Aavas Yojana Scheme, which is fully funded by the Central Government. The petitioners and four others are beneficiaries of the said scheme. The petitioners state that they could not get their houses constructed along with other because of the hardship faced by them and requested the respondents to construct the houses for them. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of directions by respondent No.1-District Collector, the staff of the A.P. Housing Corporation and respondent No.3, namely the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rolla, are not getting the houses constructed by giving the marking on the ground. Hence, they filed the present writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to construct their three houses under the Indira Aavas Yojana Scheme. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.3, and perused the material produced by the respondents. The main contention of the petitioners is that they are beneficiaries of the houses ten houses to be constructed under the Indira Aavas Yojana Scheme, and that despite directions by respondent No.1, the staff of A.P. Housing Corporation and respondent No.3, are not marking the houses. This contention of the petitioners is denied by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the counter filed by them, and it is their specific case, that there are differences among the petitioners themselves, and that the efforts made by the officials to give peg marking for construction of their respective houses, turned futile as the petitioners did not come forward, for peg marking. The fact that it is not the respondents, but the petitioners who are responsible for not getting their houses constructed, is evident from the letter addressed by the Works Inspector to the Deputy Executive Engineer, A.P. Housing Board, wherein it is stated that out of the ten houses sanctioned under the Indira Aavas Yojana Scheme in Rolla Mandal, seven houses were constructed, and the remaining three houses (sanctioned to the petitioners) were not constructed by the beneficiaries because of differences among them and also local problems. In view of this, the petitioners cannot contend that the officials of A.P. Housing Board and respondent No.3, are not peg marking and taking up construction of their houses despite directions by respondent No.1. Be that as it may, it is further the specific case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that A.P. Housing Corporation is a techno-financing agency, in that, it merely extends technical guidance and enables the beneficiaries to construct houses by means of self-help or mutual-help basis, and makes payment to the beneficiaries in piece-meal by taking into consideration the constructions made by the beneficiaries at various stages i.e. basement level, roof level, roof cast and finally upon completion of the construction. It is further stated that A.P. Housing Corporation will not take up construction of houses for weaker sections in disputed sites, it is specifically averred by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that they are ready and willing to provide financial assistance as well as technical guidance if the petitioners come forward for construction of their houses by settling their differences and disputes among themselves. In view of the stand taken by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the counter, as stated above, the only direction that can be given in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to provide necessary financial assistance and technical guidance for construction of the houses under the Indira Aavas Yojana Scheme on the petitioners approaching them after settling their internal disputes. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 5th February, 2008. KSR