THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 821 OF 2011 DATED:21-11-2011 Between: K. Guravaiah … Appellant And The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool and seven others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 821 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. Respondent No.8 had earlier filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 17212 of 2011. An allegation was made in the writ petition that the appellant was constructing apartments on government land and despite a reminder having been issued on 17-05-2011 (in connection with representations earlier made of unauthorized construction) no action was taken by the official respondents. 2. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool submitted a report dated 15-09-2011 in which it was alleged that several irregularities had taken place with regard to the construction made by the appellant. 3. After the report was submitted in this Court, respondent No.8 withdrew the writ petition filed by him. 4. On the basis of the report, it appears that some action was sought to be taken against the appellant which led the appellant to prefer Writ Petition No. 27305 of 2011 in this Court. The prayer in the writ petition was for setting aside the report on the ground that it was an ex parte report which had been prepared without notice to the appellant. 5. The learned single Judge declined to interfere with the report on the ground that it did not have any civil consequences and that if any action is taken by any of the authorities on the basis of the report, it is always open the appellant to question that action on Writ Appeal No. 821 of 2011 Page 1 of 2 such grounds as are available him including the fact that action has been taken against the appellant on extraneous considerations. 6. As mentioned above, some action appears to have been initiated against the appellant pursuant to the report and the application filed by the appellant under the Building Penalisation Scheme was rejected. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the application, the appellant has resorted to statutory remedies and the matter is still pending before the appellate authority. 8. Under these circumstances and particularly, considering the fact that the report has no civil consequences, as noted by the learned single Judge, we are not inclined to entertain this writ appeal. However, we leave it open to the appellant to pursue his remedies which are already pending before the statutory authorities. 9. With the above observations, the writ appeal is dismissed. The miscellaneous application is also dismissed. MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 21-11-2011 ks Writ Appeal No. 821 of 2011 Page 2 of 2