IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10006 of 2008 Between: B. Bharathi W/o Venkatamuni R/o D. No. 5-39, Bhajana Gudi Street, Renigunta, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Renigunta Grampanchayat, Renigunta, Chittoor District, rep by its Secretary. 2 The Station House Officer, Renigunta Police Station, Renigunta, Chittoor District. 3 P.Manikchand Jain, s/o. Parasmal Jain. 4 Bayakawar, w/o. Parasmal Jain. (Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are impleaded as per Court order dt.12.08.2008 in WPMP.No.16324 of 2008) .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, un Constitutional and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's construction of residential house as per approved plan sanctioned by 1st respondent vide B.P. No.99 of 2007-2008 on 31-03-2008. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAJENDRA BUSSA Counsel for Respondent No.1: 1.SMT.CH.VEDAVANI, STANDING COUNSEL FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT. Counsel for Respondent No.2: G.P. FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4: SRI P.JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10006 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of property bearing Door No.5-39 of Renigunta, Chittoor District. On an application made by her, the Gram Panchayat accorded permission on 31.03.2008, to construct a house. Her grievance is that even though she is proceeding with the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan, the 1st respondent is interfering with the construction. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for R-1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was accorded permission on 31.03.2008, enabling her to make construction, subject to the conditions incorporated therein and in conformity with the sanctioned plan. In case the petitioner had made any deviations, it is always open to the 1st respondent to issue notice and take further steps in accordance with law. As long as the construction undertaken by the petitioner is in accordance with the sanctioned plan, the respondents cannot interfere with the same. 4. It is represented that the 1st respondent has already served a notice on the petitioner. Obviously, on account of the pendency of the writ petition, no further steps were taken. 5. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of granting 15 days time from today to the petitioner to submit her explanation to the notice issued by the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent shall take further action on the basis of the explanation so oﬀered. Further, the 1st respondent is directed not to interfere with the construction undertaken by the petitioner as long as it is in conformity with the sanctioned plan. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner deviates from the sanctioned plan, it is always open for the 1st respondent to take action in accordance with law. No costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J 22.09.2008 v v