HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.11604 of 2011 Date: April 25, 2011 Between: Siddi Lingaiah Swamy … Petitioner And 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 6 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.11604 of 2011 O R D E R: Heard Sri P. Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 and Sri M. Bhushan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent 7 and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The writ petition has been filed to call for the records connected with the Proceedings No.B5/831/2011-Pts. dated 11.4.2011 from the third respondent, Divisional Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad, and quash the same. 3. The petitioner claims that he along with one Kundanlal jointly purchased a building bearing No.1-1-47/4 situated at Banswada, on the Nizamabad – Nizamsagar PWD road by means of a registered sale deed. Late Kundanlal sold his half share in favour of the petitioner under sale deed dated 15.7.1974. Consequently, the petitioner has become the owner of the entire extent of the said premises. It is stated that on an application made by the petitioner for construction of a building consisting of cellar, ground floor, first and second floors over the said premises, the Executive Committee of the Gram Panchayat granted permission by a resolution passed on 23.6.2009. Pursuant to the same, the Gram Panchayat, respondent 5, sanctioned building permission vide No.88/2009 dated 27.11.2009. Pursuant to the said permission, the petitioner has undertaken construction which has proceeded up to the roof level. 4. It appears that the 7th respondent raised a dispute complaining that the petitioner has not left open place as required under law. It is stated that the petitioner also has approached the civil Court and filed a suit O.S. No.32 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Banswada, seeking injunction against the 7th respondent and obtained injunction and the suit is said to be pending adjudication. It is stated that the 7th respondent approached the Gram Panchayat on 10.3.2011 and filed an application seeking cancellation of the permission granted in favour of the petitioner. The said application was rejected by proceedings dated 29.3.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the 7th respondent preferred an appeal before respondent 3, the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad, who has entertained the appeal and passed the impugned order suspending the orders dated 27.11.2009 of the Gram Panchayat granting construction permission dated 27.11.2009 and directed the Divisional Panchayat Officer to conduct inquiry and submit a report. Aggrieved by the action of the third respondent in entertaining the appeal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition contending that there is no provision for filing an appeal against an order passed by the Gram Panchayat against the impugned order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao submits that under Section 128 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, an appeal lies to the Gram Panchayat from an order passed by the Executive Authority and a second appeal thereupon would lie from the decision of the Gram Panchayat passed in appeal under sub-section (1) to such authority as may be prescribed. The counsel submits that in the instant case since the Gram Panchayat itself passed the impugned order, the said Section 128 does not provide an appeal and at the most a revision would lie to the State Government under Section 264 of the Act. 6. I am not inclined to go into this question in the writ petition inasmuch as the appeal is said to be pending consideration before the third respondent. The petitioner is not prevented from asserting this contention also before the third respondent. In view of this, I am not inclined to admit the writ petition. However, the petitioner is permitted to raise this contention as to the incompetence of the appeal and on such ground the third respondent shall consider the same and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. Since it is pleaded that the construction has stopped midway, the third respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J Date: April 25, 2011. Note: Issue C.C. in one week. //B.O.// BSB