IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1414 OF 2009 Dt.09.12.2009 Between: V. Kanthaiah … Appellant And The Collector, Panchayat Wing Nizamabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri V. Kanthaiah, Party-in-person Counsel for Respondent No.1: G.P. for Panchayat Raj Counsel for Respondent No.2: G.P. for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri M. Sanga Reddy THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1414 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This Writ Appeal is filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.15570 of 2008 feeling aggrieved by order dt.19.6.2009 of the learned Single Judge. The grievance, in short, of the appellant is that though the father of respondent No.3 has constructed a house without obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat, no action is being taken for its demolition. He placed reliance on Memo dt.07.06.2004 issued by the District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad, for seeking relief claimed by him in the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition by observing that the appellant is a chronic litigant and that he is not entitled to any relief. We have heard the appellant, who appeared in person, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing respondent Nos.1 and 2, and the learned Counsel for respondent No.3. The Memo dt.07.06.2004, which formed the basis to file the Writ Petition, was issued by the District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad, wherein he directed the Panchayat Secretary, Nandipet Gram Panchayat and the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad, to dismantle the construction, which was illegally raised by the father of respondent No.3. The grievance of the appellant is that the said Memo is not being implemented. The learned Counsel for respondent No.3 has stated that though a building was constructed without prior permission, subsequently, the construction was regularized by the Gram Panchayat. Since the Gram Panchayat is not a party before us, it is not possible to give a finding on this submission of the learned Counsel for respondent No.3. We, therefore, feel it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Appeal with the direction to respondent No.1 to examine the grievance of the appellant and take appropriate action, if the father of respondent No.3, or after his death, respondent No.3, has not obtained permission from or got the construction regularized by the competent authority, for removal of the unauthorized structure in accordance with law. As regards the costs imposed on the appellant, the appellant pleaded that there is no justification for imposition of costs by the learned Single Judge. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the learned Single Judge imposing costs is set aside. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09.12.2009 bnr