IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 352 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/04/2006 in WP NO : 8700 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Vannursab S/o. Chinna Kasim Sab, Muslim R/o. Gangavaram Village, Beluguppa Mandal, Ananthapur District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The District Panchayat Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 The Gram Panchayat of Gangavaram Village, Beluguppa Mandal, Anantapur District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Beluguppa Mandal, Anantapur District. 4 N. Dasthagerisab S/o. Pedda Kasim Sab, R/o. Gangavaram Village, Beluguppa Mandal, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Admit. At the request of the learned Advocates, the appeal is finally heard today. The facts, which give rise to filing of this appeal in nutshell are as under: For the sake of convenience, the parties to the litigation have been described as arrayed in the writ petition. It was alleged by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge that his possession and construction activities were being interfered with by respondents 3 and 4, though he had been given necessary permission for construction of house by respondent No.2-Gram Panchayat. Without issuance of notice, at the admission stage, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition by giving direction to respondents 3 and 4 to the effect that they should not interfere with the construction activity of the petitioner. This appeal has been filed by respondent No.4 stating that the land on which construction had been made by the petitioner was initially granted to respondent No.4 by respondent No.2-Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the petitioner had no right to put up construction on the land in question. It has been submitted on behalf of respondent No.4 that respondent No.4 has a right to take appropriate action for recovery of the land in question as well as for getting the illegal construction put up by the petitioner demolished. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.4-present appellant was not heard by the learned Single Judge before giving direction contained in paras 5 and 6 of the order passed in the petition. Looking to the above facts, it is just and proper to set aside the direction given by the learned Single Judge so as to enable respondent No.4 to take appropriate legal action for recovery of land in question in accordance with law. In other words, if respondent No.4 i.e., the present appellant wants to take any legal action against the original petitioner, it would be open to him to do so. Needless to say that it would also be open to the original petitioner to defend his case in accordance with law if any such legal action has been initiated against him. In view of the above facts, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that the injunction granted against the present appellant i.e., the 4th respondent is vacated so as to enable the parties to take appropriate action in accordance with law. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 27th June, 2008. _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR