THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.27252 of 2010 DT.15.12.2010 Between: Vodafone Essar South Limited … Petitioner And The Gram Panchayat, Ramallakota, Veldurthi Mandal, Kurnool District. … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. M.Anjana Taggarse Counsel for respondent: Smt.Ch.Vedavani The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the demand notice, dated 07.10.2010, issued by the respondent as illegal and unenforceable. While seeking to install a cell tower over Ac.0.40 cents of land in Survey No.146 of Ramallakota Village, Veldurthi Mandal, belonging to one K.Ramaiah Setti, the petitioner has sent intimation to the respondent about the said proposal. Obviously, treating the said intimation as an application for grant of permission, the respondent has issued the impugned demand for a sum of Rs.31,500/-, comprising installation fees of Rs.15,000/- and sums of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.5,500/- and Rs.6,000/- for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd years respectively towards service provider fees. The premise, on which, the impugned notice is challenged, is that the respondent is not empowered to levy any part of the amount referred to in the impugned demand notice under the provisions of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) or the Rules made thereunder. The petitioner has pleaded that the cell tower does not fall within the definition of Building under Section 2(3)of the Act and therefore, the necessity of the petitioner seeking permission for erecting the cell tower does not arise. In support of the plea of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.M.Anjana Taggarse, has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.10884 of 2010, dated 04.08.2010, wherein this Court inter alia has held as under: “In my opinion, a metallic structure, which does not have any characteristic of house, out-house, shop stable etc., does not fall within the definition of building. The words “whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or other material” used in the said definition were preceded by the words “such structure” which necessarily means the structures such as house, out- house, shop, stable, latrine, shed etc., as mentioned in the earlier part of the definition. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel is rejected.” When once the cell tower does not fall within the definition of Building and the same is being erected over a private land, the respondent, in my opinion, has no power or authority to demand and collect any fees. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent has not placed reliance on any statutory provision, under which, the amounts demanded under the impugned notice, can be levied by the respondent. In the premises as above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned demand notice is quashed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 02.11.2010, granted by this Court stands vacated and W.P.M.P.No.34804 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 15.12.2010. VGB