THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.3314 OF 2010 DATED: 17.02.2010 Between: Mohd. Qadeer … Petitioner And Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.3314 OF 2010 ORDER : The petitioner herein claims to be in possession and enjoyment of Mulgi No.3 and Mulgi No.4 in Gram Panchayat Complex of Banswada Gram Panchayat, Nizamabad District. It is stated that the respondents 3 and 4 herein were allotted the said mulgies by the 2nd respondent Gram Panchayat and in turn the respondents 3 and 4 let out the said mulgies to the petitioner for running footwear business. It is further stated that since the respondents 3 and 4 were attempting to dispossess the petitioner high-handedly, he was constrained to file O.S.No.16 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Banswada, against the respondents 3 and 4 for grant of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the mulgies in question. In I.A.No.81 of 2008 a temporary injunction was granted by the Civil Court and the same was also made absolute on 25.7.2008. It is also stated that subsequently the 4th respondent filed O.S.No.31 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Banswada for eviction. Similarly the 3rd respondent filed O.S.No.32 of 2009 seeking eviction and all the three suits are pending. It is alleged that at the instance of the respondents 3 and 4, the 2nd respondent Gram panchayat initiated steps to dispossess the petitioner from the mulgies in question. The Gram panchayat was also pressurizing for re-construction of the wall in between the mulgies 3 and 4 which was removed by the petitioner for the purpose of his business. Challenging the said action of the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18191 of 2009. After hearing all the parties, this Court disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 25.11.2009 granting liberty to the Gram Panchayat to take appropriate steps to see that the unauthorized occupant was duly evicted by following due process of law. Pursuant to the said order, the 2nd respondent Gram Panchayat issued a notice dated 11.02.2010 calling upon the petitioner to vacate Mulgi No.3 and Mulgi No.4 after re-constructing the intervening wall and hand over the vacant possession to the Gram Pancayat within 3 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, failing which appropriate steps would be taken in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. It is further added that in case the wall was not re-constructed, the estimated cost towards the same would be recovered from the petitioner. The said notice dated 11.2.2010 is under challenge in this writ petition. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the 2nd respondent amounts to seeking recovery of possession without following due process of law and the same being contrary to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18191 of 2009, dated 25.11.2009, the impugned action is liable to be declared as arbitrary and illegal. On a careful consideration of the material available on record, particularly the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18191 of 2009, dated 25.11.2009, I do not find any substance in any one of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Admittedly the mulgies in question are allotted by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 and the petitioner is only a sub-lessee. The fact that the petitioner had removed the wall in between the two mulgies so as to make the premises into single hall is also not in dispute, though it is claimed that the petitioner obtained permission from the 2nd respondent as well as the consent of the respondents 3 and 4 before removing the said wall. Having regard to the undisputed fact that the Gram panchayat is the owner of the shops in question and the petitioner is continuing in possession as a sub-lessee, the Gram panchayat cannot be held to have committed any error in taking steps for recovery of vacant possession. However, the Gram panchayat has to follow due process of law for evicting the petitioner as already held by this Court in W.P.No.18191 of 2009. Coming to the impugned notice issued by the 2nd respondent calling upon the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the mulgies within 3 days making it clear that in the event of his failure appropriate steps will be taken as contemplated under the Statute, I do not find any substance in the petitioner’s contention that it is contrary to the directions of this Court. The impugned notice under no circumstances can be termed as high-handed action for forcible dispossession. As a matter of fact, in the impugned notice itself it was made clear that in the event of petitioner’s failure to hand over vacant possession, appropriate steps would be taken under the Statute. So far as the re-construction of the intervening wall is concerned, the petitioner is granted liberty to file his objections, if any, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order treating the impugned notice as show-cause notice. Thereafter it is open to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken for recovery of estimated cost. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 17.02.2010 gbs