IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1366 of 2009 Between: 1 K.Venkatesulu, S/o. Thimmanna, R/o. D.No.9B/26(2), Beluguppa road, Kalyandurg, Ananthapur District. 2 K.C. Thimmanna, S/o. Basanna, R/o. D.No.9C-77, Ananthapur Road, Kalyandurg, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Kalyandurg Gram panchayat, Rep by its panchayat Secretary, Kalyandurg, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not to considering the claims/objections/explanations dt. 12.01.2009 of the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice further infraction of Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to follow the guidelines framed in W.P.No.21787 of 2001 dt. 18-10-2001 by this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR,KUNCHEAMMAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: CH.VEDAVANI(SC FOR MPP AND ZPP,RAYALASEEMA) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner received a notice, dated 18.11.2008, issued by the respondent, on 10.01.2009. Through the said notice, the respondent required the petitioner to remove encroachment on Bellarry Road, in Door No.9B/26(2). The petitioner submitted an explanation on 12.01.2009, stating that he did not encroach into the road and the construction was made strictly in accordance with the permission accorded by the Gram Panchayat. His grievance is that without considering the explanation submitted by him, the respondent is trying to demolish the structures. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. On receiving the notice from the respondent, the petitioner submitted his explanation. A specific plea is raised to the effect that the construction is made in accordance with the sanctioned plan. This, in turn, needs verification. If the disputed structures are demolished, even while the matter is under consideration, the petitioner would be put to serious loss and hardship. The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the respondent shall not demolish the premises of the petitioner without passing any order, taking into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.30-01-2009. GJ