IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.6448 of 2008 Between: Sai Baba Nagar Plot Owners Welfare Association, (regd No.1/2007) Tellapur Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District rep by its President S.Narayana Reddy, S/o. Late Veera Reddy, aged about 64 years, resident of LIG 252 BHEL Ramachandrapuram, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tellapur Grampanchayat, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District, rep by its Executive Officer. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Medak district at Sangareddy .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondent in withholding the amount of Rs.5,08,805/- paid for releasing of construction permission by HUDA as illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to refund the amount forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri G.Elisha The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.6448 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner, a registered welfare association, made an application to Tellapur Gram Panchayat for grant of permission to construct a compound wall and rooms in plots situated at Saibaba Nagar, Tellapur village of Ramachandrapuram mandal in Medak district. As the same was genuine, the first respondent-Gram Panchayat directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5,08,805/- for grant of permission. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the said amount on 28.10.2006. Thereafter, the second respondent-District Collector, by proceedings dated 30.05.2007, directed the petitioner to approach Hyderabad Urban Development Authority for necessary permission. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed a revision on 12.07.2007 before the Government, but the same was dismissed. Later, petitioner submitted an application on 18.10.2007 requesting the first respondent to return the said amount paid by it, but in vain. Hence, this writ petition seeking appropriate directions in this regard. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent-Gram Panchayat and learned Assistant Government pleader for Panchayat Raj, appearing for the second respondent. On instructions, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent-Gram Panchayat submitted that on its own volition petitioner deposited the said amount and the first respondent never demanded it to pay the said amount. May be it is true that the petitioner on its own deposited the said amount. But it does not mean that the Gram Panchayat can retain the amount for ever. When once the permission for construction of compound wall and rooms is rejected either by the Gram Panchayat or by the Government, the normal rule of prudence requires that the said amount shall be returned forthwith to the applicant. However, as it is represented by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent-Gram Panchayat that the amount would be paid in two instalments, I deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent to return the amount with interest at 9% P.A., from the date of deposit. Half of the amount shall be paid within a period of two weeks from today and the balance amount within a period of two weeks thereafter. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 16.04.2008 Note: Furnish C.C. in three days. (B/o) sh To 1 The Executive Officer, Tellapur Grampanchayat, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Medak district at Sangareddy. 3. Two C.Cs to G.P. for Gram Panchayat, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 4. Two CD copies.