S. B. SINHA, CJ. ( 1 ) THE second respondent filed the wnt petition challenging the inaction on the part of the first respondent in preventing the appellant herein from making illegal construction on the road blocking the entrance of the writ petitioner into her house. Keeping in view the factual matrix of the matter the learned single judge in Wnt Petition No. 17178 of 2001 directed the Commissioner - respondent to make an appropriate enquiry therein on the representation made by the writ petitioner in terms of the directions of the District collector and to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the appellant herein. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the said direction, the appellant herein filed the present writ appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant inter alia submitted that the road vests in the municipality and as such the District Collector cannot be said to have any say in the matter. The learned counsel would contend that a statutory functionary can only be asked by the court to perform its statutory duties. In that view of the matter, it is for the statutory authority alone to take appropriate action in this regard. Reference in this connection has been made to Section 174 of the A. P. Municipalities Act. The learned Counsel would contend that road vests absolutely in the Municipality as has been held by one of us (WSR. 3) in an unreported decision in M. Srinivas v. The Commissioner, serilmgampally, WP No. 22376 of 2000, dated 20-11-2000. ( 4 ) SECTION 174 of the said Act reads thus: 174. Acquisition of land and buildings for improvement of streets- 1) The Council may acquire- a) any land required for the purpose of turning, diverting, opening, widening, extending, or otherwise improving any public street, or of making any new public street, and the buildings, if any, standing upon such land; and b) any land outside the proposed street alignment, with the buildings, if any standing thereupon. ( 5 ) THE question as to whether the road belongs to Municipality or not is essentially a question of fact. Section 174 of the Act merely empowers the Council to secure such land if the conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the land belongs to the State. The Municipality merely is in possession thereof. Section 174 of the Act merely empowers the Council to secure such land if the conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the land belongs to the State. The Municipality merely is in possession thereof. In law, the ownership does not vest in Municipality as provided for in Sections 35, 36 and 37 of the said Act. ( 7 ) SECTION 37 of the Act which is material for the purpose of this case reads thus: 37. Vacant lands belonging to Government situated in (he Municipality to be in the possession or under the control of the council: 1) On and from the date of the commencement of this Act, all vacant lands belonging to or under the control of the government situated within the local limits of a municipality shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) and to such conditions as may be prescribed, be deemed to be in the possession or under the control of the council concerned for purposes of this Act. 2) The Council shall keep all such vacant lands free from encumbrances and shall restore the possession or control of any such land to the Government free of cost whenever it is required by the Government for their use for any public or for purpose of alienation to any person or local authority. 3) The Council shall not a) construct or permit the construction of any building or other structure on any such vacant land; b) use or permit the use of such vacant land for any permanent purpose. Unless the prior permission of the government is obtained by the council therefor, after furnishing such information as the Government may require, including the usefulness of the land or any housing scheme; c) Alienate such vacant land to any third party. ( 8 ) A statutory duty has been cast upon the Municipality to keep all vacant lands free from encumbrances. ( 9 ) VESTING of such lands do not mean transfer of ownership as the Government remains the paramount owner thereof. Such vesting is only for the purposes mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Act and for no other. ( 10 ) SECTION 194 (1) provides for the premises vesting in or belonging to the council. ( 9 ) VESTING of such lands do not mean transfer of ownership as the Government remains the paramount owner thereof. Such vesting is only for the purposes mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Act and for no other. ( 10 ) SECTION 194 (1) provides for the premises vesting in or belonging to the council. A combined reading of the aforementioned provisions would clearly go to show that the Municipality has a duty to protect the land from encroachment. Such a duty, it will be a repetition to state, vest in the Municipality by reason of Section 37 aforementioned. For all intent and purport, the Municipality remains as agent of the state so as to enable it to perform the statutory duties. By reason of the impugned judgment the appellant cannot be said to be prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. For the purpose of doing justice to the parties, if the learned single Judge has directed the collector to consider the matter, no illegality can be said to have been committed thereby. ( 11 ) THIS aspect of the matter has been considered in detail in K. Ramakrishna v. Municipal Council, Anakapalle, 2000 (6) alt 613 . ( 12 ) THE said decision in M Srinivas (supra) was passed having regard to the stand taken by the Municipality to the effect that it shall take back all the encroachments and the same cannot be said to have laid down any ratio in terms of the provisions of the A. P. Municipalities Act. The decision of the Court in M. Srinivas (supra) must be understood in the aforesaid context. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed subject to the above observations. No costs.