IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.19210 of 2002 Between: Thaduri Jayamma. ... Petitioner And The District Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda District and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: Sri M.Pavankumar Aditya for Sri L.Ravichandar for R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 28-3-2002 passed by respondent No.1. The petitioner sold a part of her vacant land - i.e., an extent of 535 Sq. yards in Survey No.75/E situated in Malkapur village, Choutuppal Mandal - to respondent No.3-Company for construction of a factory. The left over land contiguous to the land sold to respondent No.3 was retained by the petitioner and is vacant. When respondent No.3 sought to raise certain structures, in connection with their factory activity without leaving set backs, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal against the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Malkapur village, Choutuppal Mandal, before respondentNo.1. Respondent No.1 initially granted an order of status quo; after notice to and hearing the parties, he vacated the said order and disposed of the appeal by his order dated 28- 3-2002. The petitioner ﬁled the present Writ Petition, feeling aggrieved by the said order. At the hearing, Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that construction of the building without leaving set backs by respondent No.3 is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.377 dated 12-10-1973. The learned counsel relied on Rule 4 (a) of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Building Rules, 1972 in support of his contention that there must be a minimum width of not less than three meters between the rear boundary of every building site and the building itself intended for human habitation. Sri M.Pavankumar Aditya, learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended, and in my opinion rightly, that exfacie the Rule relied upon by the petitioner relates to buildings intended for human habitation. It is an admitted case that constructions were raised by respondent No.3 for factory purpose and the land adjacent to the site on which respondent No.3 was constructing the building was vacant. It is not the case of the petitioner that by raising the construction without leaving set backs, the petitioner is denied light and air, since, admittedly, the adjacent land belonging to the petitioner is a vacant land. In the additional counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.3 on 30-11-2007 it is speciﬁcally stated that at the time of construction of the factory shed, Sri Thaduri Venkat Reddy (who is the son of the petitioner) and the petitioner started demanding a huge ransom for allowing the functioning of the factory works and threatened respondent No.3 that they would create hurdles if it does not meet their demand; that respondent No.3 ﬁled two civil suits - O.S.Nos.48 and 52 of 2002 on the ﬁle of the Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapeta, Nalgonda District - against the petitioner and her son Sri Thaduri Venkat Reddy and obtained permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property; and that the said two civil suits were decreed on 28-8-2002 and 31-10-2002 respectively. It is also pleaded that an extent of Ac.3.00, situated adjacent to 535 Sq.yards, on which the petitioner has been constructing factory, is an agricultural dry land belonging to the petitioner; that the factory was constructed in the year 1985; and that on the southern side of the factory there already exists a shed abutting the compound wall of the factory premises and the agricultural lands belonging to the petitioner and other neighbours. It was further pleaded that the present construction is in line with the already existing constructions. No reply aﬃdavit is ﬁled controverting the averments contained in the said counter-affidavit. From the above-mentioned averments in the counter-aﬃdavit, it is reasonable to presume that the petitioner initiated the litigation against respondent No.3 for extraneous considerations. As the petitioner failed to satisfy that the building Rules, as referred to above, apply to the buildings other than dwelling houses, I do not find any error in the order passed by respondent No.1 dismissing the petitioner’s appeal. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. --------------------------- --------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:17-10-2008 MNR