IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29220 of 2010 Between: M. Venkat Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The Shamshabad Gram Panchayath Rep., by its Secretary, Shamshabad, R.R. District. .....Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Chidambaram Counsel for the respondent: Sri P. Raghavender Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29220 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in interfering with the petitioner’s building construction activity over plot admeasuring 102.77 square yards in Sy.No.760 (P) of Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent. The petitioner was granted building permission by the respondent on 30.10.2009. By proceedings dated 26.11.2009, the said permission was cancelled. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.26332 of 2009, which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 17.11.2009 with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Panchayat Officer (for short, ‘DPO'), who allowed the same by his order dated 10.11.2010. After the petitioner resumed construction, the respondent has issued a series of notices dated 15.11.2010, 16.11.2010 and 18.11.2010 directing the petitioner to stop the construction, as the same was allegedly in deviation of the sanctioned plan. Assailing these notices, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has developed ill-will against him for getting its order of cancellation of building permission reversed by the appellate authority and that in notices dated 15.11.2010 and 16.11.2010 no specific details of the alleged deviations have been mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only in notice dated 18.11.2010, it was stated that the petitioner has not left 5’ space from the road in constructing the building. He further submitted that the petitioner is carrying on construction strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and that he is prepared to leave the vacant space of 5’ from the road, as directed in notice dated 18.11.2010. The learned Standing counsel, while taking this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit, pointed out that on 20.11.2010, the DPO, who allowed the petitioner’s appeal and restored the building permission, has issued Memo dated 20.11.2010 directing the respondent to stop further construction by the petitioner in view of a complaint made by the villagers. The right of the petitioner to construct building over his land is subject to the plan to be sanctioned by the competent authority. As noted above, the building permission granted by the respondent was cancelled and the said cancellation order was set aside by the appellate authority by restoring the building permission. It therefore necessarily follows that so long as the construction undertaken by the petitioner is in accordance with the sanctioned plan, neither the respondent nor the DPO can interfere with the construction activity. It is not the pleaded case of the respondent that Memo dated 20.11.2010 was served on the petitioner. If the DPO on the material that may be placed before him, which was not available earlier when he allowed the petitioner’s appeal, is satisfied that the construction undertaken by the petitioner is illegal, he can initiate appropriate action strictly in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner by way of a notice. Till then, the respondent cannot interfere with the petitioner’s construction activity so long as the construction undertaken by him is strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP No.37213 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.02.2011 ES