IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 26153 of 2008 Between: M. Veerabhadrappa, S/o. M. Nagappa, R/o. H.No. 2-9/1, Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Ranga Reddy District, At Lakdi Ka Poo, Hyderabad. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Sarpanch, Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents in passing any order in Revision Petition dated 26-9-2008 filed by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents herein not to demolish the Residential House of the Writ Petitioner bearing No. 2-9/1, Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.J.VIJAYALAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.26153 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner herein was allotted the house site admeasuring 200 square yards at Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by the Gram Panchayat Narsingi by resolution dated.22- 05-1997. The possession was also delivered to the petitioner on the same day. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a building plan seeking permission for construction of a residential house. He also remitted the requisite permission fee and the Gram Panchayat sanctioned the plan on 12-06-1997. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner commenced the construction in the first week of July,1997. However, since the Sarpanch and some third parties started interfering with the construction, the petitioner was constrained to file O.S.No.337 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, West and South, Ranga Reddy seeking perpetual injunction. Pending the said suit temporary injunction was granted in I.A.No.935 of 1997. Ultimately the suit was decreed on 18.06.1998. While so, the Gram Panchayat by notice dated 26.5.1999 called upon the petitioner to vacate the site in question immediately stating that the building permission granted to him was cancelled by the Panchayat and that the District Panchayat Officer also passed an order on 21.5.1999 cancelling the panchayat’s resolution dated 22.5.1997 as well as the subsequent building permission granted to him. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10695 of 1999. Though initially interim stay of demolition was granted, having regard to the fact that the Gram Panchayat in its subsequent meeting held on 19-07-1997 passed a resolution canceling the earlier resolution dated.22.05.1997 this Court by order dated 4.8.2008 dismissed the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to question the same before the appropriate authority. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a Revision petition before the 1st respondent under Section.264 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act,1994 challenging the resolution dated.19.07.1997. However, the 1st respondent failed to consider the said revision petition and no orders have been passed even on his application for interim stay. In the meanwhile taking advantage of the dismissal of the writ petition, the respondents started interfering with the petitioner’s possession and demolition of the house. Hence the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. As could be seen from the material on record the revision petition was filed by the petitioner on 26-09-2008. The learned Government Pleader, under instructions, stated that no orders have been passed on the said revision petition till today. In the circumstances I deem it appropriate to protect the possession of the petitioner till the said Revision petition is considered and decided on merits. Accordingly without expressing any opinion on merits the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the revision petition of the petitioner dated.26-09-2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Till such time there shall be a direction to the respondents not to demolish the house bearing No.2-9/1, Narsingi village and not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession in respect of the said house in any manner what-so-ever. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 12.12.2008 *TSNR