IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28941 of 2010 Between: Naralasetti Madhavi Lakshmi ..... Petitioner AND State of A.P., rep., by its District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Mangena Sreerama Rao Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri G. Elisha The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28941 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare interference by respondent No.3 with the construction of building by the petitioner over plot Nos.23 and 24 (Sy.No.464/1) of Parchur Revenue Village, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that she applied to respondent No.3 for permission to construct a godown and that the latter vide proceedings dated 21.09.2010 granted the said permission. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 is unduly interfering with her construction activity though the construction is being undertaken strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia pleaded that the petitioner obtained permission from respondent No.3 for construction of a residential building and that she started construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan. It is further stated that when notice dated 12.11.2010 was sought to be served on the petitioner, she refused to receive the same. Prima facie, a perusal of the copy of the sanctioned plan filed by the petitioner, shows that sanction was given for construction of RCC roof residential ground floor building. Therefore, the petitioner’s plea that sanction was made for construction of a godown is false. In the face of the averment contained in the counter affidavit of respondent No.3 that the petitioner avoided receiving notice, this Court called upon the learned counsel representing the learned Standing counsel for respondent No.3 to serve a copy of such notice on the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has received a copy of the notice issued by respondent No.3. As serious allegation of deviation from the sanctioned plan is raised by respondent No.3, the petitioner shall submit her explanation to the notice received by her counsel today in the Court, within three weeks from today. Respondent No.3 shall consider the explanation that may be filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate order before taking action in respect of the alleged illegal construction. Till this process is completed, the petitioner shall not carry on further construction. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.36876 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.02.2011 ES