HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. Nos. 6863, 6876, 6877, 6878, 6879, 8177, 13851, 13836, 14271 and 14275 of 2008 Common order: The petitioners in these writ petitions have purchased various extents of plots in Sy. Nos. 169, 170, 171, 175 and 176 in Pragathi Nagar village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They state that they made separate applications to respondent No.1, namely the Executive Officer/Panchayat Secretary, Pragathinagar Gram Panchayat, requesting him to grant permission for constructions of houses in their respective plots. Respondent No.1 having considered their applications, granted permission for construction of houses. In pursuance of the said permission granted by respondent No.1, the petitioners made construction/raised houses/buildings on their respective plots and are residing therein. While so, respondent No.1 issued individual notices dated 21.01.2008 (except the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 13836, 13851, 14271 and 14275 of 2007 where no such notices were prepared) stating that the constructions being made/raised by them in their respective plots fall under the Ambeer Cheruvu (FTL) and Buffer Zone and that suppressing this fact they had obtained building construction permissions, and therefore, the construction permission granted to them is cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioners state that respondent No.1 has addressed letter dated 27.03.2008 to respondent No.2, namely the Station House Officer, Dundigal Police Station, requesting him to provide police security to enable them clear/demolish the constructions made by the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners, except the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 13836, 13851, 14271 and 14275, have questioned the individual notices dated 21.01.2008 and the letter dated 27.03.2008 addressed by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2, requesting him to provide police protection to demolish the constructions/structures, as illegal and arbitrary while the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 13836, 13851, 14271 and 14275 of 2008 have questioned the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the constructions/structures made/raised by them in their respective plots, as illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proceedings dated 21.01.2008, which is styled as notice, in fact, is not a show cause notice, but a final order canceling the building permissions granted to them. The said order was not served on the petitioners. Respondent No.1 without serving any notice, has addressed letter dated 27.03.2008 to respondent No.2 requesting him to provide police protection for demolishing the constructions/structures raised by them in their plots pursuant to the building permissions granted by respondent No.1. He further submitted that under Section 127(2) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 before cancellation of building permission, respondent No.1 is under an obligation to issue notice calling upon the individuals to submit explanation as to why the building permission shall not be cancelled, and upon considering the explanation, if any, to be submitted, pass appropriate orders and then take action in terms with, but respondent No.1 without issuing any such notice calling for explanation from the petitioners, has sought the assistance of respondent No.2 for demolishing the constructions/structures made/raised by the petitioners in pursuance of the building permissions granted to them, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, he prayed for appropriate directions. Respondent No.1 filed counters in all the writ petitions. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 reiterating the counter averments submitted that petitioners even though produced the necessary documents at the time of applying for grant of building construction permission, they did not bring the fact that the constructions to be made by them falls under Full Tank Level/Buffer Zone, and by misleading respondent No.1 they obtained building construction permission. The Assistant Collector, Ranga Reddy District, inspected the place where the petitioners made constructions, and thereafter, instructed the Pancayat Secretary to take steps for removal of the structures raised by the individuals in the Full Tank Level. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.1 issued orders dated 21.01.2008 cancelling the building permissions granted to the petitioners. It is contended that they tried to serve the orders on the petitioners, but the petitioners either were unavailable or refused to receive the notices. He submitted that since the petitioners by misleading the fact that the constructions to be made by them fall under Full Tank Level, obtained the building construction permission, respondent No.1 cancelled the same, and thereafter, sought the assistance of respondent No.2 for demolition of the structures, and no exception can be taken thereto. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-Gram Panchayat and perused the material placed before the Court. Even though the proceedings dated 21.01.2008, issued by respondent No.1, is styled as notice, the same, in fact, is not a notice, but a final order passed canceling the building permission granted to the petitioners. The said order, apart from canceling the building permission granted to the petitioners, calls upon them not to make any constructions/remove the constructions already made. If according to respondent No.1, the petitioners have obtained building construction permission by misleading him or by playing fraud upon him, definitely he is entitled to take action for canclling the building construction permission, but before taking steps to cancel the building permission, he is under an obligation to issue notice to the individuals/petitioners calling upon them as to show cause as to why the building permission granted to them should not be cancelled and why they should not be prevented from making further constructions/remove the constructions already made, but since the impugned order, has directly cancelled the permissions granted to the petitioners without issuing any notice, the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-Gram Panchayat agreed for disposal for the writ petition with the following directions: The order dated 21.01.2008, issued by respondent No.1, shall be treated as show notice to all the petitioners, including the petitioners who contend that no such order was passed against them, calling upon them to show cause as to why the building constructions granted to them should not be cancelled, and why they should not be prevented from making further constructions/demolish the constructions already made, because the constructions being made by them fall in the Full Tank Level. The petitioners shall submit their explanation to the impugned notice within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, respondent No.1 shall consider the explanations to be submitted by the petitioners and then pass appropriate orders. Till such exercise is undertaken, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained with respect to the constructions made by the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 11th June, 2009. KSR