THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.14700 of 2007 Dated: 28-01-2008 Between: L. Navyatha Reddy …. PETITIONER AND Gram Panchayat, Kompally Village and others. …. RESPONDENTS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.14700 of 2007 ORDER: Heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for Respondents 1 and 2 and Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar for Respondents 3 to 6. The writ petition is filed alleging that respondents 1 and 2 have abdicated their statutory responsibilities in interdicting the illegal constructions by the respondents 3 to 6 in Plot No. 5 of Central Park Layout, Kompally Village, Qutbullapur Mandal. It is alleged that respondents 3 to 6 have encroached into the set backs even according to the approved building permission, and the respondents 1 and 2 are not taking any action. Pursuant to a series of interim orders of this Court, the first respondent Gram Panchayat, consequent upon a personal visit/inspection by the 2nd respondent-Collector demolished what were perceived to be illegal constructions by respondents 3 to 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner is now satisfied that the extent of illegal constructions have been demolished. In so far as respondents 3 to 6 are concerned, it is their case that though they did not violate the plan approved by the Panchayat Secretary nor made deviant constructions, demolitions have been made by the 2nd respondent even of the constructions which fall within the contours of the plan approved by the Panchayat Secretary. It is however, the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that the Panchayat Secretary is totally incompetent to approve a building permission and only the Executive Committee of the Gram Panchayat could have approved building permission. It is also the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that approvals were granted in transgression of the relevant building bye-laws/rules and therefore, the respondents 3 to 6 cannot claim legitimacy of the constructions on the basis of such an unauthorised approval and by an incompetent authority. These issues urged on behalf of the respondents inter-se need not be adjudicated in this writ petition. If the respondents 3 to 6 have any claim for damages or any other recompense against the respondents 1 and 2, for any violation, abdication or negligent performance of statutory obligations, they are always at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies. Since the petitioner’s grievance does not survive, neither does the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J Date: 28th January, 2008 pnb