THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.142 of 2010 DATED: 30.04.2010 Between: Racha Yadagiri .. Petitioner and District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the notice dated 22.12.2009 issued by the 4th respondent- Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Meerpet, Saroornagar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. Petitioner claims to be the owner of plot No.48/A (part) in Sy.No.21 of Meerpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same for valid consideration, under a registered sale deed dated 07.12.2005. He states that he applied to the 4th respondent for grant of permission for construction of a house in the subject plot and, on verification of necessary documents and layout, the 4th respondent granted building permission to him in the year 2005, but however, he could not proceed with the constructions due to financial difficulties and, thus, later he got the permission renewed in the year 2009 and proceeded with the constructions. At that juncture, the 4th respondent issued the impugned notice dated 22.12.2009 stating that the subject plot is situated in the land meant for Park and the petitioner obtained building permission, by furnishing false information, and got it renewed, and therefore the building permission granted in his favour was cancelled and the petitioner was directed to stop the construction work taken up in the subject land within three days from the date of receipt of the notice. The said notice appears to have been issued by the 4th respondent, in pursuance of a complaint made by Lakshminagar Flat Owners’ Welfare Association of the Village. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the subject plot is not situated in the land meant for Park, as alleged by the 4th respondent, and no prior notice was issued nor any enquiry was conducted by the 4th respondent, before issuing the impugned notice. While issuing notice before admission on 06.01.2010, this Court ordered status quo to be maintained by the parties for a limited period. Respondent No.4 filed a detailed counter-affidavit reiterating the contents in the impugned notice that the subject plot is situated in the land earmarked for Park and the petitioner obtained building permission, by suppressing the real facts. He, however, admitted that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner before issuing the impugned notice and also stated that, if the Court feels that notice is necessary before cancelling the permission of the petitioner, he will take steps to follow the due process according to G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26.02.2002 and would take necessary action accordingly. Since the impugned notice, which is in the nature of final order, has been issued without issuing any notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned notice is set aside and the respondents are directed to issue notice to the petitioner, indicating the grounds as to why the permission granted in his favour, shall be cancelled, and after considering the explanation that may submitted by the petitioner, they shall pass appropriate orders and take necessary action in accordance therewith. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed not to make any further constructions in the subject land or alter its nature. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 28th April, 2010 IBL