THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5657 of 2010 April 29, 2010 Between: Vangapally Venkatesham, S/o.Nagaiah And another … Petitioners And The District Collector (Panchayat Raj), Warangal District And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5657 of 2010 ORDER: The two petitioners are husband and wife. They are residents of Cheriyal Village in Warangal District. They seek invalidation of notice bearing Rc.No.315/GPC/2009, dated 06.3.2010. By the said notice, Panchayat Secretary of third respondent requested petitioners to produce building permission and title/ link documents in respect of petitioners’ houses/shop bearing Nos.23-9, 23-10, 23-11 and 23-12. Be it also noted the said notice was issued in connection with their complaint to third respondent about alleged illegal construction undertaken by respondents 4 and 5, husband and wife. Second petitioner statedly purchased 294 Sq.yards from Gajula Anasuya under registered sale deed and constructed Ground + first floor under sanctioned plan dated 18.10.2001 issued by third respondent. Respondents 4 and 5 purchased adjacent old tiled house bearing Nos.23-5, 23-6, 23-7 and 23-8 (23-7/8) under two separate registered sale deeds. They applied for permission for removing dilapidated house and construct new building. Permission was granted to them on 09.2.2010. The said property is bounded on the North by PWD road leading to Siddipet and on the West by the Gaddithoda Hamlet. Petitioners allege that on the side of East respondents property is 57.6 feet and the Gram Panchayat also granted permission to that extent. But it is alleged that in the sanction plan they have shown the same as 65 feet and by doing so, they are trying to encroach the public property on the northern side. The area is a busy locality with Police Station on one side Nehru statute and other business shops on the other side. Petitioners raised objection. Respondents 4 and 5 then filed suit being O.S.No.15 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Janagaon, and obtained interim injunction. The petitioners gave a complaint to third respondent on 04.3.2010 to conduct enquiry alleging that respondents 4 and 5 encroached upon public road. Third respondent issued notice dated 06.3.2010 calling upon the petitioners to produce necessary documents. The Gram Panchayat through its Panchayat Secretary filed counter affidavit with the following averments. Contesting respondents made an application on 16.11.2009 seeking building permission for residential houses. According to title deeds, respondents 4 and 5 are absolute owners of land admeasuring 271.5 Sq.yards. Objections were called for. On 22.1.2010 petitioners gave complaint. Considering the objections, building permission was granted to respondents 4 and 5 for construction of house on 186.6 Sq.yards. In the building permission, it was also mentioned that if they failed to make construction in accordance with building permission, necessary action will be taken as per Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Rules made thereunder. Petitioners again made complaint on 04.3.2010 requesting Gram Panchayat to verify physical features. Therefore notice was issued on 06.3.2010 advising contesting respondents to stop construction and submit their explanation. After inspecting the area, impugned notice was issued to petitioners to submit the documents for verification. The staff of Gram Panchayat also measured the plot and found that there is no deviation as alleged. Petitioners are also defendants in O.S.No.15 of 2010. Respondents 4 and 5 filed counter affidavit. While denying petition allegations, it is stated that they purchased residential house with 131.7 Sq.yards from Gajula Anasuya under registered sale deed dated 25.5.2001. On the same day fifth respondent purchased 139.7 Sq.yards. These two properties are having different Panchayat numbers. Subsequently they filed joint application to Gram Panchayat for construction of residential house and shops. There is PWD road at a distance of 23.6 feet on the North-west and 9.11 feet on North-east side. They applied to Gram Panchayat for building permission based on actual measurements. After verifying measurements, their vendor executed two rectification deeds on 08.4.2009 duly correcting the mistakes in the dimensions. There is an open space of 60 Sq.yards between PWD road and house of respondents 4 and 5. When petitioners demolished bore well of respondents 4 and 5, they filed criminal complaint, which was registered as Crime No.44 of 2010. They also filed O.S.No.15 of 2010. The counsel for petitioners vehemently contends that as per the sale deed dated 25.5.2001 under which respondents 4 and 5 purchased property, the plot measures from north to south on eastern side 57.6 feet. But the Gram Panchayat gave approval for construction on the said side upto a distance of 62.6 feet as a result of which respondents are encroaching on the land. This is refuted by the counsel for Gram Panchayat. The counsel for respondents 4 and 5 made submissions with reference to maps and sale deeds. It is no doubt true that the sale deed reveals north to south on the eastern side (petitioners’ property side) is 57.6 feet. Probably realizing the mistake, vendor of respondents 4 and 5 executed two rectification deeds which support the contention of respondents that actual measurement on the north to south on the eastern side is 65 feet. Further Panchayat Secretary in his counter affidavit asserts that the Gram Panchayat staff physically measured the plot and they found that there was no violation by respondents 4 and 5. This Court however hastens to add that the respondents have already filed O.S.No.15 of 2010 before Civil Court in this regard and, therefore, the petitioners who are also defendants therein can as well defend their case. They can also prefer appeal before the District Panchayat Officer. Insofar as impugned notice is concerned, this Court does not find any infirmity therein. It is the petitioners who raised the dispute and unless and until their documents of petitioners are also produced, it would not be possible for the Gram Panchayat to verify factual aspects. Therefore, the writ petition filed challenging an innocuous notice is wholly misconceived. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 29, 2010 YS