IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 21717 of 2004 Between: K.Rajeevalochana Reddy S/o.Ramana Reddy Kothuruchinthope Gram Panchayat, Indukurpet Mandal, Nellore Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dist Collector (Panchayat Division) Nellore, Nellore Dist. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Nellore, Nellore Dist. 3 The Divisional Panchayat Officer Nellore, Nellore Dist. .....RESPONDENTS 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the orders passed by the 1st respondent in Roc.No.1728/2003-A2 dt 9-11-2004 as illegal arbitrary and without jurisdiction and set aside the same or direct the respondents to re- deliver the building to the petitioner, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, who is present. No counter affidavit is filed. The writ petition assails the first respondent’s order dated 09-11-2004. By the said order, the District Collector (Panchayat Division), Nellore, on the basis of the report of the third respondent dated 26-10-2004; statements of the villagers of the Grampanchayt Kothuruchinthopu and the report of the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Indukurpet, the Gram Panchayat was directed to remove the name of the petitioner’s mother Smt. Kota Reddy Annapurnamma from the panchayt building. According to the petitioner, as the Grampanchayat had no building of its own and the meetings of the panchayat were being conducted under the trees and at the local Devasthanam, the petitioner donated the site and also constructed a building thereon with his own funds on the condition that the building should be named after his late mother. The petitioner claims to have spent Rs.30,000- 00 for construction of the building and executed a gift deed donating the site and building to the Grampanchayt on 11- 09-1997. The Sarpanch of Kothuru Gram Panchayat having accepted the same and by a resolution dated 07- 09-2002, the Grampanchayat resolved to name the panchayat building in the name of the petitioner’s mother. Accordingly, the Panchayat building was named as Smt. Kotareddy Annapurnamma memorial building. The petitioner alleged that after general elections, the supporters of the ruling party made representations to the respondents to remove the donor’s name from the Panchayat building. The second respondent directed the third respondent to obtain the records pertaining to contributions made by the petitioner for construction of the Panchayat building. According to the petitioner, the petitioner did furnish the documents relating to the donation of the site and contribution of amount for construction of the building, but the third respondent refused to receive the same. However, without notice and opportunity to the petitioner, the first respondent issued the impugned proceedings directing removal of the name of the petitioner’s mother on the Panchayat building. The petitioner assails this conduct of the petitioner and issuance of the proceedings dated 09-11-2004 as arbitrary, violative of the principles of fair play and illegal. Though the writ petition was instituted on 23-11-2004, the respondents have not chosen to file counter affidavit till date. On the principle of non-traverse therefore the allegations in the writ petition must be considered to have been established. On this premise, the impugned order is unsustainable. It is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Since no counter affidavit has been filed, this Court considers it appropriate to impose costs of Rs.10,000-00 (Rupees Ten thousands only) payable by the respondents jointly and severally, to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs quantified as above. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 24-03-2008 Pvks/*