THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.4503 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners are members of the Rudravaram Gram Panchayt of Muppalla Mandal, Guntur District. They feel aggrieved by the action of the Gram Panchayat in passing a resolution dated 11-02- 2009, proposing to construct Gram Panchayat building on the land gifted by Musikara Venkateswara Reddy, and Induri Venkateswara Reddy. The petitioners state that though the land was gifted in favour of the Gram Panchayat, way back in the year 1974, building was not constructed on account of non-suitability of the plot. It is also stated that the Mandal Parished had sanctioned 3 cents of land by the side of the school building, and instead of constructing office building in that land, the Gram Panchayat has decided to construct building in the donated land. It is alleged that the notices were not at all issued for the meeting, said to have been held on 11-02-2009. The petitioners claim to have made a representation to the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and District Collector, respondents 2 and 3 herein, raising objection to the resolution. Their grievance is that no action has been taken thereon. Heard Sri C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, and learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat. It is rather said that the Gram Panchayat did not have an office building, though it was formed several decades ago. Politicization of each and every issue has resulted in hampering the development in large number of Gram Panchayats. The petitioners raised an objection as to the legality, as well as the propriety of the resolution, passed by the Gram Panchayat. It is only the Government, that is conferred with the power to cancel the resolution, that too, if the conditions mentioned in Section 246 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 exist. Power is also conferred upon the District Collector to send the report, under sub- section (3). This Court cannot express any opinion as to the legality or otherwise of the resolution, much less, can it direct respondents 2 and 3, to take any particular action. Much would depend upon the view, which the respondents 2 and 3 may form on the resolution, after verifying the necessary facts. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents 2 and 3 shall examine the matter, with reference to the relevant facts, and concerned provisions of law, on the basis of the representation made by the petitioners. This order shall not be treated as expressing opinion, either way. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Dt.05-03-2009. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. KO