THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2329 of 2011 Dated 07th February, 2011 Between: B.Prabhakar …Petitioner And Gram Panchayat, Dammaiguda, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, rep.by its Panchayat Secretary, and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Gaddam Srinivas Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notice, dated 19.01.2011, of respondent No.1, whereby it has called upon the petitioner to produce the relevant documents pertaining to plot No.414 in Survey Nos.577, 583 and 584 of Dammaiguda Gram Panchayat and directed not to raise any constructions. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel, representing the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. The petitioner claimed that he has purchased house bearing No.9-31 in plot No.1 part (east side) admeasuring 200 sq.yards in Survey Nos.577, 583 and 584 of Nagaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from one Sri Nagabhushanam through a registered sale deed, dated 29.08.2005, for valuable consideration. It is his case that after purchase of the property, he has submitted an application to respondent No.1 for mutation of his name and that after due verification, mutation was done in his favour on 06.10.2006. The petitioner pleaded that his vendor purchased the said property from one Allam Bal Mohan Reddy, through a registered sale deed and thereafter, he obtained permission for construction of house vide permission No.1679/2001-02, dated 30.12.2001. Respondent No.2 evidently made a representation on 30.11.2011 to respondent No.1 claiming that he has purchased plot No.414 in Survey Nos.577, 583 and 584. Based on the said representation, respondent No.1 issued notice, dated 16.12.2010 calling upon the petitioner to produce the documents relating to the property. The petitioner caused a reply notice issued on 21.12.2010, wherein the above-mentioned facts were stated. Thereafter, respondent No.1 has issued the impugned notice. At the hearing, the learned counsel, representing the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, submitted that respondent No.2 has made a representation to respondent No.1 stating that the petitioner has encroached into his land and been raising constructions thereon, without permission from respondent No.1 and that on coming to know that the petitioner has undertaken unauthorised construction without obtaining building permission, respondent No.1 issued the above-mentioned two notices. As regards the claim of respondent No.2 that the petitioner has encroached into his land, the same raises a dispute of civil nature. It is neither permissible nor possible for respondent No.1 to entertain such a dispute. If respondent No.2 has any grievance against the petitioner on this count, he is entitled to approach the appropriate civil Court. With regard to the direction issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner to stop construction, such a direction can be given only after being satisfied that the petitioner has been raising construction without building permission. Before arriving at such a conclusion, respondent No.1 is bound to issue a notice in this regard calling upon the petitioner to submit the documents along with the building permission. It is only thereafter that respondent No.1 can pass an appropriate order to stop further construction and initiate action, if it is satisfied that the petitioner has been making unauthorised constructions. Till then, respondent No.1 cannot prevent the petitioner from raising construction. In the light of the above facts, the petitioner is directed to submit his explanation to respondent No.1 regarding building permission within one week from today. Respondent No.1 is directed to take appropriate action on considering the petitioner’s explanation, within a period of two weeks of receipt of such explanation. Till this process is completed, status quo as on today shall be maintained regarding construction. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.2900 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 07th February, 2011 VGB