V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners claim to be the owners of land in CAS No. 256/2b of Nellore town admeasuring Acs. 1-021/2 cents. They filed the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the Nellore Municipality in laying roads and drains in the said private land of the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal. ( 2 ) THIS Court after issuing notice before admission on 18-3-1997, ordered Rule nisi on 3-9-1998 and on the same day passed orders in directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners land. ( 3 ) THE respondent-Municipality has now filed an application being WVMP No. 3032 of 2000 praying to vacate the interim order dated 3-9-1998. ( 4 ) AS the submissions made for the purpose of interlocutory applications WVMP 3032 of 2000, WPMP No. 6092 of 1997 and the main writ petition are similar, the main writ petition is taken up for hearing with the consent of the respective counsel. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of the land in question wherein they are running a business in the name and style of Chinni international hotel. An extent of Ac. 0. 55 cents of land behind the hotel was encroached upon by some trespassers, who erected huts. The petitioners filed civil suits as well as cases under the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1983 against them. The suits were decreed declaring the title of the petitioners. The petitioners also got issued a legal notice to the respondents stating that the land belongs to them and that, therefore, the Municipality may not take up the work of laying roads or drainage in the land in the occupation of the encroachers/trespassers. In spite of that as the respondent-Municipality initiated action for laying roads and drainage in the land behind the petitioners hotel they filed the writ petition seeking the relief as noticed at the outset. ( 6 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed accompanying the application for vacating the stay, the Municipal Commissioner states that the Councillor of ward No. 32 made a representation requesting to provide the basic amenties like road and drainage. ( 6 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed accompanying the application for vacating the stay, the Municipal Commissioner states that the Councillor of ward No. 32 made a representation requesting to provide the basic amenties like road and drainage. Accordingly the Municipal Council passed a resolution in public interest that because the place where the encroachers are admittedly raised tenements is afflicted by squalor and has become a breeding ground for mosquitoes and other vector insects, therefore, the municipality conceived a cement concrete road and an open drainage of a length of 33. 55 meters with 1. 5 meters width. An amount of Rs. 33,000. 00 was sanctioned and by 6-3-1997 the first phase and by 30-7-1997 the second phase of the work of construction of road and drainage were completed. This is done to make the area more hygienic and to prevent health hazards like spread of diseases. The petitioners approached this Court long after the completion of the works by withholding the information from this Court. Therefore they prayed for dismissing the writ petition and vacating the interim orders. ( 7 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri P. Gangarami Reddy and the learned standing Counsel Shri E. Sambasiva Pratap. ( 8 ) THE only question raised is whether the Muncicipality is competent to take up the developmental works like construction of drainage and laying of cement concerete road with a view to preventing the spread of diseases and health hazards. ( 9 ) CHAPTER V of the Andhra Prdesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for brevity the Act ) deals with powers of the municipality and Municipal authorities to abate nuisance. Section 250 of the Act provides that whenever the municipal health officer considers that any building or portion thereof has become a source of disease and is likely to endanger the public health or safety may acquire the ownership of that building or portion thereof and execute such works or take up such measures as he may deem necessary for the prevention of such danger. Section 252 of the Act deals with abatement of nuisance in places where there is over- crowding in the dwelling houses. Under this provision, the Muncipality is empowered to take up all such measures to prevent the spread of disease to maintain hygiene in the municipal area. Section 252 of the Act deals with abatement of nuisance in places where there is over- crowding in the dwelling houses. Under this provision, the Muncipality is empowered to take up all such measures to prevent the spread of disease to maintain hygiene in the municipal area. Therefore, it cannot be accepted or countenanced that the municipality cannot take any steps like laying of cement concrete road or construct drainage to prevent the spread of disease caused by mosquitoes and other animals. We cannot,therefore, find fault with the resolution of the Municipality resolving to construct road and drainage. The mere fact that the petitioner obtained a decree from the civil Court as to their title does not act as a prohibition for the municipal authorities to exercise their powers to abate nuisance under S. 252 of the Act. ( 10 ) WHILE the writ petition is pending, the petitioner filed another application being W. P. M. P. No. 13255 of 2000 praying for an interim direction to the respondents not to levy any municipal tax on the structures raised by the trespassers in the land. This application is also misconceived. The provisions of the Act empower the municipality to levy tax on the structures raised and the municipal authorities are not concerned with the ownership of the structures. Indeed the law provides that if the real owner fails to pay property tax and other levies as validly imposed by the municipality, it is always open to the tenant or the occupier of the building to pay the municipal levies and seeks necessary relief from the landlord for the law empowers the municipality to take all coercive steps against the occupier or the tenant of the building attracting the municipal property tax. Therefore even if the municipality decides to collect encroachment fee or property tax from the trespassers encroachers who are allegedly in occupation of Ac. 0. 55 cents of the land in CAS No. 256/2b there is no legal infirmity in the same. ( 11 ) IN the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.