THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24685 of 2010 Dated 15th March, 2011 Between: S.Laxma Reddy and another …Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector (Panchayat Raj), Medak District at Sangareddy and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N.Manohar Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri P.Raghavender Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. By resolution, dated 08.06.2010, the Gram Panchayat, Gummadidala, accorded building permission to the petitioners for construction of first floor in the existing building belonging to them. By consequential proceedings No.189/GP Gummadidala, dated 15.06.2010, respondent No.3 has granted permission for such construction. By the proceedings, dated 28.09.2010, respondent No.3 informed the petitioners that through memo No.1944/2010/A3/Pts.-3, dated 08.09.2010, respondent No.2 has informed it that he has cancelled proceedings, dated 15.06.2010, granting building permission in favour of the petitioners, as the latter failed to prove their title to the land and accordingly directed it to remove the construction already made. Respondent No.3 has, therefore, called upon the petitioners to voluntarily remove the construction within seven days, failing which, action under Section 98 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 will be taken for removal of the structure at their cost. Assailing that order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that neither a notice was given by respondent No.2 before issuing the purported memo, dated 08.09.2010, nor any such memo has been served on them. They have further pleaded that so long as the building permission granted in their favour continues to be in force, none of the respondents can interfere with their construction or enjoyment of the property. Respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that respondent No.2 has issued memo, dated 08.09.2010, wherein it is stated that as the permission was granted to the petitioners for construction over grama kantam land, the structure shall be removed and as a follow-up of the said proceeding, respondent No.3 issued notice, dated 28.09.2010. It is further stated that there seems to be a dispute between the petitioners on the one side and their brother, Mr.S.Pramod Reddy, on the other and that respondent No.2 has issued memo, dated 08.09.2010, on the appeal filed by the said Pramod Reddy. It is further averred that the Gram Panchayat is now proposing to issue a show-cause notice for cancellation of building permission and will take further action, after following due process of law. Respondent No.3 enclosed a copy of Memo No.1944/2010/A3- Pts.-3, dated 08.09.2010, of respondent No.2, to the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the said Memo was issued on the appeal filed by Mr.S.Pramod Reddy. A reading of this memo would show that the permission granted by respondent No.3 on 15.06.2010 does not refer to plot number or house number and that the property is grama kantam land without any boundaries. It is further stated that on enquiry, it is established that the resolution of the Gram Panchayat was passed and the permission was granted by respondent No.3 without following the rules and therefore, respondent No.3 shall remove the construction with the assistance of the police. No counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.2 to justify the memo. The averment of the petitioners that neither a prior notice was given to them nor a copy of the memo, dated 08.09.2010, was served on them has remained uncontraverted. Even the contents of the said memo, dated 08.09.2010, do not reveal that any such prior notice was given to the petitioners. Even if respondent No.2 has acted as an appellate authority in entertaining the appeal stated to have been filed by the brother of the petitioners, he ought not to have arrived at the unilateral conclusion about the nature of the property, in respect of which, building permission has been accorded by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioners. The Principles of Natural Justice require that before passing any order adverse to the interests of a person, such person is entitled to a notice and an opportunity of being heard. As this fundamental procedure is not followed, memo, dated 08.09.2010, of respondent No.2, is void and unenforceable. The consequential notice given by respondent No.3 is also invalid in law. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned proceedings of respondent No.3 are set aside. Respondent No.3 is restrained from taking any further action against the petitioners in pursuance of memo, dated 08.09.2010, issued by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 shall not give any direction to respondent No.3 in the purported appeal filed by the petitioners’ brother, unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the petitioners. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.31592 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.5323 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th March, 2011 VGB