THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.25704 of 2002 DATED: 11.06.2010 Between: Annam Venkateswara Rao .. Petitioner And The District Panchayat Officer, Krishna at Machilipatnam and others. .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioner claims to be the owner of the land in R.S.No.432/11 and 435 of Kaikalur Village and Mandal, Krishna District. He states that he obtained permission for construction of shops in ground and first floor in the said land. When the construction was almost complete, the 3rd respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer, Kaikalur, issued notice on 15.11.2002, alleging certain encroachment and in the month of December 2002, the alleged encroachment was removed. After that removal, he has taken up construction in the undisputed portion, but the 2nd respondent- Gram Panchayat, Kaikalur, has issued a notice dated 07.12.2002, stating that he was making constructions by encroaching the adjacent land and by not obtaining requisite permission, and thus he was directed to submit building plan and get it approved by the Gram Panchayat and not to proceed with construction till then. Petitioner states that he replied to that notice on 13.12.2002, stating that the construction is within the permissible area and the permission obtained by him is in force and sufficient, but, without considering the same, the respondent authorities are proceeding to demolish the building, which is arbitrary and illegal. This Court issued Rule nisi on 27.12.2002 and passed interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.32460 of 2002, directing the respondents not to interfere with the construction, if it is made as per the sanctioned plan. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter-affidavits, however, as they are not clear and do not answer the question involved, this Court directed respondents 1 and 2 to appear before the Court along with the record and the sanctioned plan. Accordingly, respondents 1 and 2 appeared before this Court and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for them has placed before this Court the written instructions furnished by respondent No.1. In the said written instructions, it is stated that the land in an extent of Ac.0.03¾ cents in R.S.No.432/11 of Kaikaluru Village is an assigned land and the petitioner came into possession of the same by virtue of a general power of attorney executed by the legal heirs of the assignee. It is further stated that the petitioner made constructions in the said land in deviation of the sanctioned plan and that he has not obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat for modification of the structures and, on complaint by the neighbours that he is making constructions by encroaching the adjacent land, action was initiated against him. It is also further stated that the District Collector, vide proceedings dated 07.01.2003, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudiwada, to cancel the patta issued earlier and evict the encroacher i.e. the petitioner herein. However, it is stated that, so far, the Revenue Divisional Officer has not cancelled the patta and that construction is complete with shopping complex and a lodge in first floor. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of the unauthorized constructions made by him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the written instructions submitted by the respondents and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition as under: “The 2nd respondent- Gram Panchayat is directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner indicating the unauthorized constructions made by him and upon issuance of such notice, the petitioner shall submit his explanation thereto and, considering the explanation that may be submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders and take appropriate action in accordance therewith. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on date shall be maintained.” The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 11th June, 2010 IBL