IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4483 of 2008 Between: Chintha Kunata Rajeshwar S/o.Narayana R/o.H.No.4-1-101 Pallikonda(V) Bheemgal(M) Nizamabad Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dist Collector(Panchayat Wing) Nizamabad Dist 2 The Dist Panchayat Officer Nizamabad Dist 3 The Extension Officer Panchayat & Rural Development Bheemgal, Nizamabad Dist 4 Pallikonda Grampanchayat Rep.by its Secretary Pallikonda Bheemgal(M), Nizamabad Dist 5 The Divisional Panchayat Raj Officer Nizamabad Dist 6 Vemnpalli Nara Goud S/o.Limba Goud R/o.Pallikonda(V) Bheemgal(M) Nizamabad Dist .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 or any appropriate writ or writs or direction/s more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.64/2008-B5(pan)as being illegal, arbitrary unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner and the 6th respondent are residents of Pallikonda Village of Bheemgal Mandal, Nizamabad District. The gram panchayat of the village accorded permission to the 6th respondent for construction of a house on the site admeasuring 23 feet x 17 feet in the neighbourhood of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the District Panchayat Oﬃcer, Nizamabad, the 2 nd respondent herein. An order of stay was granted on 02- 02-2008. Thereafter, the appeal was disposed of through order dated 22-02-2008 on the basis of the report said to have been submitted by the Divisional Panchayat Oﬃcer, the 5th respondent herein. The petitioner submits that he was not issued any notice before the appeal was disposed of and even from a perusal of the order, it is evident that the facts pleaded by the petitioner were found to be correct. It is urged that the 2nd respondent ought to have heard the matter in detail before disposing of the same. Separate counter aﬃdavits have been ﬁled on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 on the one hand and the 6th respondent on the other hand. It is stated that the plot was purchased by the 6th respondent from the Village Development Committee and permission was accorded as per the rules. It is stated that to ensure proper access to the local residents, permission was revised by restricting the area to 15 feet X 10 feet. Heard Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy; learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the 6th respondent. The petitioner raised an objection for the grant of permission to the 6th respondent to construct a house in the site referred to above. Feeling aggrieved by the permission accorded to the 6th respondent, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the 2nd respondent under Section 128 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’). The appeal being under a speciﬁc provision of the Act, was required to be heard and disposed of through a reasoned order. There is nothing on record to disclose that the 2nd respondent had issued notice to the petitioner before he disposed of the appeal. It may be true that the 2nd respondent secured report from the Divisional Panchayat oﬃcer after the appeal was presented. The ﬁndings recorded by the Divisional Panchayat Oﬃcer ought to have been made available to the petitioner and at any rate, notice of hearing ought to have been issued to the parties. Another aspect of the matter is that the appellate authority pointed out that the area over which construction can be made must be reduced. Here again, the views of the parties ought to have been ascertained. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders after issuing notice to both the paries within a period of four weeks from today. Status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained till the disposal of the matter. L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 04-11-2008 ks ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Dist Collector(Panchayat Wing) Nizamabad Dist 2 The Dist Panchayat Officer Nizamabad Dist 3 The Extension Officer Panchayat & Rural Development Bheemgal, Nizamabad Dist 4 Pallikonda Grampanchayat Rep.by its Secretary Pallikonda Bheemgal(M), Nizamabad Dist 5 The Divisional Panchayat Raj Officer Nizamabad Dist 6 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Fisheries, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (OUT). 7 Two CD copies.