THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.21268 of 2007 ORDER: 1 In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 27.09.2007 issued in Proceedings No.128/2007- B5 (Pts) by the District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad where under a direction was given to the third respondent – Gram Panchayat to take steps for demolition of the compound wall erected by the petitioner around his property. 2 The petitioner is the owner and possessor of house bearing D.No.7-99/1 of Pitlam village, & Mandal, Nizamabad District. When there is an open plot in front of his house admeasuring 350 square yards, he purchased the same by way of a registered sale deed bearing document No.2422 of 2000 dated 17.08.2000. In order to construct a compound wall around the said piece of land, he made an application to the gram panchayat, Pitlam on 02.07.2006. In response to the said application, the gram panchayat, after issuing necessary notification inviting objections, granted permission for the said purpose, as per the plan enclosed by the petitioner. When the construction was in progress, the fourth respondent has filed an application before the District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad i.e. first respondent herein alleging that the petitioner was making construction without leaving necessary set backs. On the above said application filed by the fourth respondent, the first respondent passed the impugned order prohibiting certain constructions in the sanctioned plan on the ground that set backs were not left as per the orders of the Government. The said order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3 Mr. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1994 there is no power for the first respondent to entertain the complaint / application filed by the fourth respondent and as such the impugned order is without jurisdiction and hence requires to be quashed on that ground itself. 4 On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Bhushan Reddy learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent that with regard to the disputed area, the fourth respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.30 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Banswad and by judgment and decree dated 01.05.2010, the said Court granted permanent injunction in favour of the fourth respondent, restraining the petitioner herein from making any constructions in the disputed site and the said judgment has become final. It is also submitted that when the constructions were being made contrary to the sanctioned plan, the fourth respondent approached the first respondent who has passed the impugned order for taking necessary action. 5 As per the provisions of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1994, against the orders passed by some one subordinate to the gram panchayat in respect of granting permission or rejecting permission, appeal lies to Gram Panchayat. Only in such an event, against the orders of the Gram Panchayat, second appeal is provided to the District Panchayat Officer. In this case, it is to be noticed that there is no appeal preferred and the permission itself is granted to the petitioner based on the resolution of the Gram Panchayat. In view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Aljapur ganga Mohan Vs. District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad District and others[1], the first respondent – District Panchayat Officer has no authority to pass the impugned order. It appears, merely because there is a report filed by the fourth respondent, this impugned order came to be passed. In that view of the matter and in view of the judgment of this court in Aljapur ganga Mohan case (1 supra), the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 6 Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, this Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order passed by the first respondent – District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad in Proceedings No.128/2007-B5 (Pts) dated 27.09.2007 is hereby set aside. No order as to costs. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the construction made by the petitioner. --------------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 08.11.2011 Kvsn [1] 2002 (3) ALD 163 (DB)