JUDGMENT P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, C. J. — This writ petition is filed by some of the villagers of Alasahi challenging the action of the authorities, with the help of a voluntary organisation, in con¬structing a school building-cum-cyclone shelter near the existing school building or in front of the existing school building. 2. According to the writ petitioners, the said construc¬tion was being attempted in a land described in the Record of Rights as ‘Gramya Rasta’ and the construction intended to be put up will block the access of the villagers to a pond which was being used by the villagers for various purposes. Certain Villag¬ers have also come up with a petition for intervention in which they have contended that the construction of the building was in the interest of the villagers that no road was being blocked and that the claim of the petitioners in the writ petition that the road to the pond was blocked was not correct and that the petitioners in the writ petition were not acting in the interests of the village and some of them are encroachers on to the village road. The authorities have filed a counter affidavit in which they have stated that the building was constructed in such a way that it was adjacent to the existing school building, that the writ petition was filed only after the construction had reached the roof level and that the building being put up will not block the road to the village pond. It is pointed out that the compound wall of the School had fallen down and construction, in any event the most of its is within the area that originally fell within the school compound. It is submitted that the assertions of the petitioners that this was not in public interest was unsustainable. It is further contended that some of villagers have encroached into the public road as can be seen from Annexure-1 itself. The case of trespass by the petitioner No. 2 is specifically referred to. It is thus contended that this was not a fit case for interference by this Court on the basis that any public interest has been affected or impaired. 3. The case of trespass by the petitioner No. 2 is specifically referred to. It is thus contended that this was not a fit case for interference by this Court on the basis that any public interest has been affected or impaired. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that since the Record of Rights showed the area as Gramya Rasta, it was within the ambit of amendment to Section 3 of the Government Land and Settlement Act, 1962 and in the absence of dereservation in terms of Section 3-A of the Act, the land cannot be used for the purpose of putting up any construction. This is met by the learned Additional Government Advocate by pointing out that no such ground was raised even in the writ petition and that in any event the land was not gochur land but was only shown as Gramya Rasta and the land was not communal land in the real sense of the term Counsel submitted that this was really part of the school compound and there was no substance in the contention sought to be raised based on Section 3 of the Act without laying any foun¬dation in the pleadings for raising such a plea. 4. What we find is that a school building-cum-cyclone shelter is being constructed adjacent to the school and mostly within the original school compound itself. The pleadings of the intervenors and the other opposite parties indicates that there will in any event be no complete blocking of any road or way leading to the pond as sought to be put forward by the petition¬ers. We find from Annexure-1, the Record of Rights and the case set out in the counter affidavit by opposite parties 1 to 3 that one of the writ petitioners himself is an encroacher onto the village road. This writ petition was filed after the construction had reached the roof level. We find from Annexure-1, the Record of Rights and the case set out in the counter affidavit by opposite parties 1 to 3 that one of the writ petitioners himself is an encroacher onto the village road. This writ petition was filed after the construction had reached the roof level. Considering the purpose for which the building is constructed and taking note of the fact that there is serious differences of opinion among the villagers relating to the obstruction if any that may be caused by this construction and taking note of the further fact that the construction is being put up adjacent to the existing school building and partly at least in its compound we are of the view that this is not a fit case for interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Consti¬tution of India in a writ petition of this nature seeking to espouse public interest. It is not established before us that interference by us in this writ petition would be in public interest. On the other hand, from the stand adopted by the inter¬venors and opposite parties 1 to 3, we are inclined of the view that interference by us would not be in public interest. In that situation, we are satisfied that it is not just or proper to interfere with the completion of the construction of the school building-cum-cyclone shelter. In that view, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners. We dismiss the writ petition. 5. We direct opposite parties 1 to 3 to ensure that a proper compound wall is constructed for the school on the comple¬tion of the present construction. After such construction, if there is any obstruction caused to the village road by any of the villagers, we direct opposite parties 1 to 3 to take steps to remove those encroachers from all village roads and the road leading to the village pond. Petition dismissed.