IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 26263 of 2001 BETWEEN: 1 Bhumireddy Gangi Reddy, S/o. Erikala Reddy, Resident of Cooperative Colony, Proddatur Town, Cuddapah District. 2 B.C. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. B. Bal Reddy, Resident of 5/262, Vijianagaram Street, Proddatur, Cuddapah District. 3 Pitta Bhadramma, W/o. Late P.V. Ramana, Resident of 5/279, Vijianagaram Street, Proddatur, Cuddapah District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Proddatur Municipality, Rep. by its Municipal Commissioner, Proddatur, Cuddapah District. 2 The District Collector, Cuddapah. 3 K. Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o. Garuda Reddy, Resident of D.No.5/1878, Geetha Ashramam Road, Proddatur, Cuddapah District. 4 Bogala Balreddy, S/o. Gurivi Reddy, Resident of D.No.5/1876, Geetha Ashramam Road, Proddatur, Cuddapah District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring the action of the 1st Respondent herein in not taking any action for removal of the encroachments for construction of a drainage channel and road in Sy.No.391-A of Vijayanagaram Street, Proddatur Town, Cuddapah District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the decision of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.20871/1998 dated 11.6.1999 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to take action as per the guidelines in W.P.No.20871/1998 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.I.NEWTON GP FOR MPL ADMN & URBAN DEV The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners submit that they are the owners of the land situated in Sy.No.391-A of Vijayanagaram Street, Proddatur town, Cuddapah District and on the northern side of their property there is a kalva poramboke. While so, the first respondent wanted to construct a permanent drainage canal and a road on one of the channels in kalva poramboke and initiated proceedings to remove the encroachments. The respondents 3 and 4 filed WP.No.20871 of 1998 and also a suit in O.S.No.91 of 1998 against the petitioners and the first respondent for declaration that the property mentioned in the plaint is public property and the said suit was dismissed with a liberty to the first respondent to remove the encroachments under Section 192 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. It is stated that the respondents 1 and 2 are not taking any steps for removal of the encroachments from the kalva poramboke. 2. Counter has been filed stating that the respondents 1 and 2 have been taking steps to remove encroachment in Sy.No.391-A but could not construct the drain due to lack of funds. The municipality has not taken up construction of drainage in Sy.No.391-A as the financial position of the municipality is very much poor hence the construction of drain and road work in Sy.No.391-A was not taken up. It is stated that whenever the funds are available, the municipality will remove the encroachments in Sy.No.391-A, Kalva Poramboke and construct drain and road in the large interest of the public. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the aforesaid counter, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to take appropriate steps for removal of the encroachments from the kalva poramboke and construct drain and road, as stated in the counter, as expeditiously as possible and as and when the financial position of the municipality improves and funds are available. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J August 8, 2008 DSK