THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7538 of 2011 Date:23.03.2011 Between: Jogam Raju ..... Petitioner AND The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat of Vemulawada, Vemmulawada Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.S.N.Moorthy Counsel for Respondents: Sri P.Raghavender Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings No.C/709/10, dated 17.03.2011, of respondent No.1. The petitioner claims to have purchased 121 sq.yards of open site in Survey No.1369 from one Smt.Marepalli Padma, r/o Vemulawada, vide registered sale deed, dated 30.07.2009. That on 15.11.2010, the petitioner made an application to respondent No.2 for grant of building permission for construction of residential house. Respondent No.2, vide its resolution, dated 25.01.2011, granted permission, while approving the plan. Consequential proceedings, dated 28.01.2011, were issued by respondent No.1, granting building permission to the petitioner. When the petitioner was proceeding with the construction, respondent No.1 issued the impugned notice allegedly at the instance of one Sri Cherla Anand Kumar, politician. A perusal of the said notice shows that in the complaint received by respondent No.1 from Sri Cherla Anand Kumar, it is alleged that the construction is being made by the petitioner without layout approval and by encroaching upon the road. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to remove the structure, failing which, the staff of respondent No.2 will remove the same at the expenses of the petitioner. At the hearing, Sri S.S.N.Moorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that his client has been constructing the building strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and that the impugned notice is issued at the instance of a politician, whose illegal demands were not met by the petitioner. He further submitted that respondent No.1 without even calling for the petitioner’s explanation has unilaterally come to the conclusion that his client has encroached upon the public road and raised construction and therefore, the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. After hearing Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I am of the opinion that without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case, respondent No.1 cannot conclude that the petitioner has encroached upon the public road. So long as the building permission granted in favour of the petitioner subsists, the respondents cannot interfere with his right to construct the house. If the respondents are of the opinion that the petitioner has encroached upon the public road or that the building permission was granted overlooking the fact that there was no approved layout, they are entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for cancellation of the building permission. Till such action is taken, the respondents cannot interfere with the petitioner’s right to construct the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan or to remove the building. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside with liberty to the respondents to act in accordance with law. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.9380 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd March, 2011 VGB