IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRURY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.4518 OF 2005 Between: Smt. Kalvauntla Ratna Kumari. … Petitioner AND The Collector (Panchayat Wing), Adilabad District and three others. …Respondents This Court made the following: ORDER: 1. The petitioner herein was the Sarpanch of Khanapur village, Adilabad District. She filed this case aggrieved by the proceedings dated 17-02-2005 of the Collector (Panchayat Wing), Adilabad District, wherein directions were issued for dismantling of the new construction allegedly made by the petitioner on the R & B road. 2. This Court, in the first instance, granted interim stay of demolition pursuant to the impugned proceedings, by order dated 09-03-2005. The stay order was extended from time to time up to 15-06-2005. No further extension is apparent from the record. Being oblivious to this fact, it appears that the respondents filed petitions to vacate the interim order dated 09-03-2005. By order dated 02-11- 2006, this Court taking note of the fact that the interim order had not been extended beyond 15-06-2005, closed the vacate stay petitions. 3. It is stated that despite the interim order not being extended beyond 15-06-2005, no action has been taken by the authorities pursuant to the impugned proceedings. 4. The complaint of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without putting his client on notice, the authorities sought to demolish the constructions made by her in her premises bearing No.8-67 (Old), corresponding to its new No.9-117, situated at Padmavathinagar, Khanapur Village, Adilabad District. 5. It is his case that the constructions made are not new and that the impugned proceedings are motivated by political considerations. 6. The counter affidavits filed by respondent Nos.1 and 4 allege that the petitioner made new constructions upon the R & B Road boundary and that she proceeded with the construction in spite of the R & B Department issuing notice dated 06-01-2005 calling upon her to stop the illegal construction. 7. There is thus a dispute as to whether the construction allegedly made by the petitioner in the subject premises is a new one and if so, whether it is upon the R & B Road boundary. 8. It is pertinent to note that the impugned proceedings dated 17-02-2005 called upon the authorities to take action for dismantling of the alleged new construction duly following the rule position. It appears that the authorities failed to notice this part of the proceedings and seem to have straightaway initiated coercive action for demolition of the alleged offending structure without putting the petitioner on further notice. It is relevant to note that under Section 53 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short “the Act of 1994”), all public roads in the village, other than National and State High Ways and roads vesting in the Zilla Parishad and Mandal Parishad, vest in the Gram Panchayat. In the event of any encroachment upon such roads, it is open to the Gram Panchayat to initiate necessary action under Section 98 of the Act of 1994. However, as stipulated in the statutory provision itself, the owner or occupier of the building must necessarily be given an opportunity to prove his/her case as provided under Section 98(2)of the Act of 1994. 9. In the present case, no such opportunity was extended to the petitioner. That being so, it was not open to the respondents to unilaterally initiate action under the cover of the impugned proceedings dated 17-02-2005, without duly following the rule position as stipulated therein. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of leaving it open to the respondents to initiate action against the petitioner as directed in the impugned proceedings dated 17-02-2005 in accordance with law, if warranted. No order as to costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J February 3, 2011. KVS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.4518 OF 2005 February 3, 2011