IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5409 of 2009 Between: Yellamanchili Gram Panchayat, rep.by its secretary Sri.T.Rajagopala Rao, S/o.Late Chittabbayi @ Nookalu Yellamanchili,Visakhapatnam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Padala Ramana S/o.Veerabhadrudu Ramanagar, Padapalli Road Yellamanchili, Visakhaptnam District 2 The Sub Inspector of Police, Yellamanchili (T) P.S.Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.S.R.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for Respondent No.1: ----- Counsel for Respondent No.2: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner-Yellamanchili Gram Panchayat filed this Writ Petition for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2, in providing Police protection as per its request made vide letter No.163/2008, dated 02-12-2008, for removing the unauthorized constructions made by respondent No.1, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to respondent No.2 to provide Police protection. Heard Sri M.Bala Subrahmanyam, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 is not present at the hearing. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.2. The petitioner is a Gram Panchayat and respondent No.1 was stated to have applied to the petitioner for construction of a building along with a plan under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Raj Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002. It is the case of the petitioner that as respondent No.1 failed to file his ownership/title deeds over the site along with his application, it passed resolution dated 28-06-2008 rejecting the said application and communicated the same to him on 10-07-2008 and also on 22-07-2008. The petitioner alleged that though it called upon Respondent No.1 not to make any unauthorized constructions without obtaining valid permission therefrom, he proceeded with the construction without permission, and that the petitioner sent final notice dated 21-10-2008 calling upon respondent No.1 to remove the unauthorized constructions made by him and that in spite of receipt of the same, respondent No.1 was proceeding with the construction. The petitioner further averred that it requested respondent No.2 vide letter dated 02-12-2008 to give protection for removing the unauthorized structure. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2, who is duty bound to give such protection, has not been extending his cooperation in removing the illegal structure. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed separate counter- affidavits. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, while denying that he raised construction without valid permission, he stated that on 31-03-2009, he submitted an application for construction of the building; that the said application was returned as the same was not in proper form and; that the petitioner asked him to stop the construction. He further stated that he filed letter dated 31-05-2009 informing the petitioner that he removed the tiled house, which was his ancestral property, and was constructing a building on the same site. He further averred that the petitioner issued receipt dated 31-03-2009 acknowledging his letter and that he issued legal notice dated 08-04-2009 as the petitioner was harassing him. Under Section 121 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), no piece of land shall be used as a site for construction of a building and no building shall be constructed or reconstructed and no addition or alteration shall be made to an existing building without the permission of the Gram Panchayat, granted in accordance with the provisions of any rules or bye-laws made under this Act. Under Section 139 of the Act, every Police officer, in whose jurisdiction the Village is situated, shall be bound to assist the Gram Panchayat and its Officers and servants in the exercise of their lawful authority. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia mentioned that as per the requisition of the Secretary to the petitioner-Gram Panchayat, necessary Police bandobust was provided on 03-12-2008, but, the Gram Panchayat Officials did not turn up to the place in question for removal of the unauthorized construction. He further stated that he instructed respondent No.1 to stop construction work till the dispute is settled. In paragraph 3, he stated that no fresh requisition was made by the petitioner seeking Police protection and that if any such fresh requisition is filed, the same will be considered in accordance with law and necessary bandobust will be provided as per the requirements. In the light of the stand taken by respondent No.2, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. While it is not for this Court to pronounce upon the issue whether the construction raised by respondent No.1 is unauthorized or not, respondent No.2 shall, if approached by the petitioner, be bound to act in accordance with the Act. As respondent No.2 has already made his stand clear that he is prepared to give necessary Police Protection, if a fresh requisition is made by the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of by placing on record the said stand of respondent No.2. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.7057 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 22nd June, 2009 LUR