THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25177 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner claims that he is the owner of old houses bearing Nos. 1-10 to 1-13/1 and 1-11/1 of Seetaipally Gram Panchayat, Gandhari Mandal, Nizamabad District. It is stated that since the houses were in a dilapidated condition, he constructed a compound wall around them, within his land. Respondents 5 and 6 filed a representation before the Divisional Panchayat Officer, the 2nd respondent herein, alleging that the petitioner constructed wall across the C.C. road. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 31-10-2008, to the Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, to verify the matter and remove the construction, if it is found objectionable. The petitioner states that the Gram Panchayat itself examined the matter and passed a resolution on 11-11-2008, observing that he did not encroach into the public road. His grievance is that on the strength of the impugned notice, steps are being taken to remove the compound wall. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj; learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, and learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6. On a representation made by respondents 5 and 6, the 2nd respondent issued a notice to the Gram Panchayat, requiring them to examine the matter and report compliance. Strictly speaking, the 2nd respondent ought to have heard the petitioner, before taking any view. Though no specific direction was issued, it proceeds as though the petitioner made illegal construction. Equally vague is the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. It is a bit extraordinary, in the sense that it virtually decides the title of the petitioner over a piece of land. If, in fact, the petitioner had constructed compound wall, restricting the traffic on a cement road, it cannot be countenanced. On the other hand, if it is within his property, it need not be interfered with. A correct verification in this regard can be made, only by a spot inspection conducted by the 2nd respondent, with reference to the relevant record. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned notice, dated 31-10-2008, and by directing the 2nd respondent to cause a personal inspection; verify the record, and issue necessary directions to the concerned parties, after giving an opportunity of being heard. This exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.02-04-2009. KO