THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.16043 of 2011 Between: 1. Sri Doosari Danayya Goud and another PETITIONERS And 1. Executive Officer (Panchayat Secretary) Grampanchayat, Khalsa Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and another. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner Sri D. Pchaiah Counsel for the respondents: Sri P. Raghavender Reddy Court made the following ORDER: Notice in G.P.I.No.5/2010/11, dated 21.04.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent-Panchayat Secretary directing the petitioners to remove the construction on the ground that the same has been made without obtaining permission is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioners are owners of a plot admeasuring an extent of 346.067 sq. yards in S.No.365 to 367 of Khalsa, Ibrahimpatnam village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat vide permit No.242 of 2010-11 dated 31.03.2011, which clearly indicates that the land is situated in S.No.365 to 367. However, the 2nd respondent without verifying the same issued the impugned proceedings directing removal of the construction. A counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent while admitting that the petitioners have been granted permission on 31.03.2011, it is stated that the petitioners started construction on some other land. The notice is said to have been given on the basis of a complaint made by the neighbours. There is no dispute that the petitioners are the owners of the site situated in S.Nos.365 to 367. The construction permission also refers to the same survey numbers. Except a vague allegation that the petitioners have started construction in some other plots, no details are adverted to nor any material has been placed by the respondent in that regard. On the other hand, even in the impugned notice it is stated that the land is situated in survey numbers 365 & 367. It is therefore evident that the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned order even without verifying the actual facts merely basing on some unfounded complaint. In the circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 30th August, 2011. Js.