IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 15163 of 2008 Between: M.Ratnaiah, S/o. late sivaiah, R/o. Muthangi Village, Patancheru, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Medak district, sangareddy, 2 The Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal, Patancheru, Medak District. 3 Muthangi Gram Panchayat, rep by its Sarpanch, Muthangi Village, Patancheru (M) Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, and more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandmus declaring the demolition of Petitioners structures without notice as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and against the Principles of Natural Justice and void; and consequently direct the respondents to consider the Application dated 20.01.2007 of the Petitioner for building permission in sy.No.510 of Muthangi Village, Medak District and pass appropriate orders by fixing a time limit; and direct the respondent pay suitable compensation for the arbitrary and illegal demolition of Petitioner's structures; and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. BATHINI PAPA RAO GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 15163 of 2008 Order: Heard Sri B. Papa Rao Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G. Elisha, learned Standing Counsel for ZPPS, MPPS and Grampanchayats, Telangana Region. While the grievance in the writ petition is regarding demolition of the petitioner’s structure, Sri B. Papa Rao Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, since the petitioner has applied for permission for construction, it would suffice if this Court directs the respondents to accord sanction at an early date to enable the petitioner to proceed with the construction. Learned counsel would refer to the proceedings dated 15.10.2007, which he claims to have been filed with the office of the Grampanchayat concerned. Sri G. Elisha, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner has not submitted any application. Learned Standing Counsel would, however, fairly state that in case the petitioner submits an application seeking permission, the Grampanchayat would consider the said application, in accordance with law, within one month. The letter dated 15.10.2007, relied upon by the petitioner, is a letter addressed to the District Collector and cannot be construed as an application to the Grampanchayat seeking permission for construction. Ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to make a proper application to the third respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the third respondent is directed to consider the said application in accordance with law and take an appropriate decision with regards sanction of permission for construction within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the application. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 19.11.2008 Nsr