THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.10150 of 2011 BETWEEN: Hyma Plates & Vessels Pvt. Ltd. PETITIONER And 1. The Government of A.P. Panchayat Raj Department, rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Ananda Rao Counsel for the respondents 1 & 2: G.P. for PR & RD Counsel for the respondent No.3: Sri P. Raghavender Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner-company claims to have purchased some vacant plots admeasuring 3,308 sq. yards in Sy.No.450 situated at Sulthanpur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District in the year 2001 for the purpose of establishing a small scale industry. It is stated that it also sought for necessary permissions from the concerned Gram Panchayat for undertaking construction. The petitioner states that it made an application through single window to the concerned authority for necessary permission for constructions, in pursuance of which the Inspector of Factories, Hyderabad, made enquires and the petitioner complied with the directions of the then HMDA by submitting link documents and other title deeds as per the requirement. Even as the said application was pending, the petitioner received a notice dated 21.10.2010 from the Sarpanch/Secretary of the Gram Panchayat proposing to demolish the constructions said to have been made without obtaining prior permission of the Gram Panchayat. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted its explanation to the said notice seeking regularization of the constructions made by collecting penalty etc. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 6.12.2010 by the Panchayat Secretary for removing the said unauthorized constructions. It is stated that aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent-District Panchayat Officer, Medak District. The said appeal was dismissed by orders dated 18.03.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition to the State Government as provided under Section 264 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) on 29.03.2011. The said revision petition is said to be pending as on date. In the meanwhile, as a consequence of dismissal of appeal, the 3rd respondent has issued notice dated 11.04.2011 for removal of the unauthorized construction. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. It is true that the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the orders of demolition was dismissed vide orders dated 18.03.2011. But the said order has not become final. The petitioner has availed the remedy by way of revision petition to the State Government as provided under Section 264 of the Act. It is therefore appropriate that till the revision petition is disposed of the 3rd respondent in all fairness, has to await the result of the revision. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision petition said to have been filed by the petitioner, against the orders in proceedings No.3427/2010/A2-Pts, dated 18.03.2011 of the 2nd respondent, as early as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also directed that until such disposal, the constructions that have already been made shall not be demolished. It is also directed that the petitioner shall not undertake any further constructions. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 15th April, 2011 Js. Note: Operative portion by wire.