THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.1731 of 2009 24th November, 2009 Between :- B.Pratap Reddy and another .. Petitioners And Gram Panchayat Jillelguda village, Saroornagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District, Rep.by its Secretary and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.1731 of 2009 ORDER:- This Court issued rule nisi on 4-2-2009. 2. Counter affidavit of R.2 had been filed. 3. Sri Ch.Ramesh Babu, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the stand taken in the counter affidavit and further pointed out to the order made in W.P.No.25287/2008 and further would maintain that having been unsuccessful in getting an interim order before the Writ Court and having been withdrawn the Writ Petition, clandestinely R.4 and R.5 managed the 2nd respondent to make an order vacating the interim stay granted earlier without putting the petitioners on notice at all. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the very fact that the said Function Hall was inaugurated on the very next day by certain politicians also would go to show that this was done by the 2nd respondent without following any procedure whatsoever at the behest of the said politicians. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the material papers and further no doubt pointed out to some Press Reports as well in this regard. 4. Per contra, the learned A.G.P. for Panchayat Raj had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and would maintain that as can be seen from the records, it appears to be a dispute between close relatives and a partition action is pending, apart from this aspect of the matter, the reasons had been well explained in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent by the interim order granted earlier had been vacated and hence this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. 5. Sri Vijayasen Reddy, the learned Counsel representing R.4 and R.5 had pointed out to certain agreements said to have been entered into between the parties and would maintain that in the light of the same, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Heard the Counsel. 7. The Writ Petition is filed to set aside the Memo No.547/2008-B(Pts), dt.20-11-2008 of the 2nd respondent and to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to initiate necessary action against respondents No.4 and 5 and to remove the illegal construction i.e., buildings and sheds made in Sy.No.93 in Jillelaguda village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District in terms of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, A.P.Urban Area Development Act etc., and the Rules made there-under and to grant such other relief or the reliefs as the petitioners are found entitled to in Law by issuance of a writ, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case or else the petitioner will be put to great hardship and suffer irreparable loss. 8. The 2nd petitioner had sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and it is stated that the 1st petitioner is his brother. It is averred that the land admeasuring Ac.7.26 gts., in Sy.Nos.87, 91, 92, 93, 94 and 104 situated at Jillalguda village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District, is the property of joint family consisting of their father namely late Sri Sama Narasimha Reddy, the father of respondent No.4 and 5 namely late Sri Sama Yadi Reddy and Sama Rami Reddy. 9. Further it is averred that the pahanies for the year 1996-97 discloses the record of the names of this petitioner and 1st petitioner representing their father late Sama Narasimha Reddy as well as the name of late Sama Yadi Reddy and Sama Rami Reddy as joint owners. 10. It is also stated that the Mandal Revenue Officer recognized the joint possession and ownership rights of this petitioner, 1st petitioner and two others over Ac.7.26 gts., and issued pattadar pass books including to them in Patta Nos.27 and 30 respectively. Thus, the petitioners, respondents 4 and 5 and the children of late Sama Rami Reddy are jointly enjoying the possession of Ac.7.26 gts., even though respective extent of shares of land allotted in each survey numbers and entries effected in the Revenue Record and got separate pattadar pass books. As such, physical partition of respective shares to be effected with meets and bounds. 11. It is also further stated that in the recent past, the land values in the Urban Areas of Ranga Reddy District were increased and differences arose among co-sharers for effecting physical partitions of respective shares with meets and bounds, as the respondent No.4 and 5 refused to partition of the lands. Further, the respondents No.4 and 5 have unilaterally started construction of sheds over an extent of Ac.1.36 gts., in Sy.No.93 as if they are the absolute owners though none of the sharer is entitled to exclusively develop or deals with the lands in any survey numbers till the partition of all the lands in various survey numbers are effected with meets and bounds and the respective sharers were put in possession showing boundaries of shares partitioned. 12. It is averred that in the given circumstances, that on 21-10-2008 the petitioners had fileld suit for partition of the land admeasuring Ac.7.26 gts., in Sy.Nos.87, 91, 92, 93, 94 and 104 situated at Jillelguda village, Saroornagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District seeking partition of respective shares in each survey number with meets and bounds and put each sharer in separate possession duly making the respondents No.4 and 5 as Defendant No.1 and 2, the children of late Sama Yadi Reddy as defendants No.3 and 4 and others, registered as O.S.No.1097/2008 on the file of the II-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 13. It is also stated that notwithstanding the rights claimed and the reliefs sought for claimed by the petitioners in the above suit and inspite of their objections, the respondents No.4 and 5 have proceeded with construction of sheds over Ac.1.36 gts in Sy.No.93 without obtaining for conversion of land usage, without obtaining layout, building permission from proper authorities under the relevant Laws. Therefore, the construction of sheds/buildings by respondents 4 and 5 in Sy.No.93 is illegal and out of which the petitioners’ rights have been adversely affected. In the circumstances, that on 24-10- 2008 the petitioners had filed petition before the 2nd respondent and requested him to stay illegal construction. 14. Further it is stated that the 2nd respondent examined the petition and that on 13-11-2008 passed orders staying the illegal and unauthorized construction of function hall taken place in Sy.No.93 of Jillelguda village extent of Ac.1.25 guntas by Sri Sama Srikanth Reddy and others until further orders, directed the 1st respondent to stop the illegal and unauthorised construction and also requested the Extension Officer (PR AND RD) Saroornagar to ensure to implement the orders strictly by the Panchayat Secretary of Jillelguda Gram Panchayat. 15. It is also stated that the respondents No.4 and 5 have assailed the order dt.13-11-2008 of 2nd respondent before this Court on 17-11-2008 by way of W.P.No.25287/2008. That on 19-11-2008, the above Writ Petition came up for admission, it appears that this Court declined to grant stay of impugned order, the petitioners in the said Writ Petition sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition. Considering the same, it is ordered that the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. 16. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent vacated the stay orders dt.13- 11-2008 by memo dt.20-11-2008 even without issuing any notice either to this petitioner or to the 1st petitioner for the reasons best known to him. 17. The said order is as hereunder:- GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Memo.No.547/2008-B1(Pts) Office of the Dated: 20-11-2008 District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District. MEMO Sub:- PANCHAYATS – Gram Panchayat Jillelaguda – Saroornagar Mandal – Construction of function Hall in Sy.No.93 extent of Ac.1-25 guntas by Sri Sama Srikanth Reddy and others of Jillelaguda – Stayed orders issued – Report received from Panchayat Secretary – Stay Orders – Vacated – Reg. Ref:- 1) Sri B.Prathapa Reddy and others, Vinaynagar Colony, Hyderabad appeal pt dt.29-10-2008. 2) The District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District, Memo.No.547/2008-B1 (Pts), dt.13-11-2008. 3) The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Jillelaguda,Lr.No.G.P./100/2008,dt.18-11-2008. -: o0o :- In view of the references cited, after careful consideration of the report of the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Jillelguda, the stay orders issued in the reference 2nd cited, with regard to the construction of function hall in Sy.No.93 by Sri Sama Srikantha Reddy and others at Jillelguda is hereby vacated. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Jillelguda is directed to take action accordingly. Sd/- DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT. 18. It is also averred that in the circumstances the petitioners pursued the Civil Court to decided the IA filed in the suit for grant of injunction orders but the respondents No.4 and 5 are dragging the matter. In the circumstances, to note the case of respondents 4 and 5 from the Writ Petition fileld in the 2nd week of January, 2009. The petitioners have obtained a copy of the Writ Petition from the office of this Court and shocked to note that there is an agreement dt.22-4-2008 between the joint owners of Ac.7.26 guntas and division of the shares with meets and bounds in the plan annexed showing the land in Sy.No.93 falls to the share of respondents 4 and 5 though the petitioners are not the signatories to the same. Further it is revealed that on 2-4-2008 the respondents No.4 and 5 have applied for permission to the 1st respondent for cost of four sheds over the land in Sy.No.93 showing it as plot Nos.4 to 4 though by the date the alleged agreement is not even exist and there is no permission for conversion of land usage and no layout sanctioned, yet the 1st respondent approved the construction of four sheds in its proceedings dt.17-5-2008. It is further revealed that the extent of plots in which construction of four sheds was admeasuring 987 sq.yds., each of plot Nos.1 and 2 and 952 sq.yds., each of plot Nos.3 and 4, and not disclosed the pendency of suit for partition filed by the petitioners against respondents No.4 and 5. 19. It is also reiterated that the petitioners are being joint owners of land in Sy.No.93 with respondents 4 and 5 and others, have not applied for conversion of land usage and for sanction of any layout over the lands in Sy.No.93. It is not known whether the respondents No.4 and 5 have applied for the same and if so whether they obtained sanctioned of conversion of land usage and layout from the Competent Authority. Further, it appears that the 1st respondent is not the competent authority to sanction the construction of sheds as the property is in Urban Area, falls under the jurisdiction of 3rd respondent for the purpose of approved of layout/final sanction of Building permit. 20. At any rate, the permission obtained for construction of sheds from the 1st respondent on the basis of fake documents while the respondents No.4 and 5 have constructed not only the sheds but also huge buildings as there is no sanction for the same. Further the buildings/sheds constructed when compared to the sanction permit, there is a lot of variation. The photographs of the building/sheds etc., constructed over the land in Sy.No.93 by the respondents No.4 and 5 demonstrate the same. 21. It is also averred that from the said statement of facts it is clear that the respondents 1 to 3 have failed to discharge their functions fairly and properly and they have colluded with respondents No.4 and 5 and out of which the illegal construction of the buildings/sheds came into existence on the disputed property. The way in which the respondents No.4 and 5 have got inaugurated the illegal constructions of buildings/sheds in progress in a hurried manner thro two Cabinet Ministers of the State, inviting VIPs, demonstrate to give wrong signals to respondents 1 to 3 not to exercise/discharge their powers/duties cast in Law and even otherwise, the inaction/silence on the part of respondents No.1 to 3 amount to abdicating their statutory functions and conceded to the political influence of respondents No.4 and 5 having regard to some of the dates and events taken place in sequence details as below. Date Event 21-10-2008 Suit for partition in O.S.No.1097/2008 24-10-2008 Petition to 2nd respondent 13-11-2008 Stay of construction by the 2nd respondent 17-11-2008 Respondents No.4 & 5 filed W.P.No.25297/2008 19-11-2008 Withdrawn W.P.No.25297/2008 20-11-2008 Order vacations to stay of construction by R.2 21-9-2008 Inauguration of illegal construction by the two State Ministers 22-11-2008 Inauguration reported in Press 22. Further it is stated that the impugned order dt.20-11-2008 passed by the 2nd respondent is violative of the principles of natural justice. The inaction of the respondents No.1 to 3 for not proceeding with the petitioners’ petition dt.24-10-2008 marked to them is arbitrary and unjust. The unjust and illegal acts of the Officials respondents No.1 to 3 favouring respondents No.4 and 5 had adversely affecting the rights of the petitioners as guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India, apart from affecting their right to stop and/or seek removal of illegal construction over the land in Sy.No.93 being one of the joint owner. Even as on date, construction in some area in the disputed land is going on. The petitioners approached respondents No.1 to 3 but they are not taking any action pursuant to the petition dt.24-10-2008. Further the petitioners’ right to seek removal of illegal construction was not properly attended when they are complained to respondents No.1 to 3. Further respondents No.1 to 3 have an obligation not to grant permission over the property in dispute and to demolish the construction made contrary to the sanction plan as stipulated in the permission or under the provisions of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, A.P.Urban Area Development Act. Further it is stated that the respondents No.1 to 3 are therefore liable to be reprimanded for the unjust acts pointed out and they are liable and be directed to initiate necessary action against respondents No.4 and 5 and the illegal construction i.e., buildings and sheds constructed in Sy.No.93 in Jillelguda village, Saroornagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 23. In such circumstances, being left with no other option, the writ petitioners approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 24. The order under challenge already had been referred to supra. 25. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent though it had been stated in the counter affidavit that certain copies had been enclosed, none of the copies had been enclosed. It is stated that on receipt of the appeal pt, the 2nd respondent in Memo No.547/2008-B1 (Pts),dt.13-11-2008 had granted stay orders on the illegal and unauthorized construction of Function Hall taken place in Sy.No.93 of Jillelguda extent of Ac.1.25 gts., by one Sama Srikanth Reddy and others until further orders and directed the 1st respondent i.e., Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Jillelguda, to stop the said illegal and unauthorized construction work at once and report compliance. The Extension officer (PR & RD) Saroornagar had also been requested to ensure to implement the said orders strictly by the 1st respondent i.e., Gram Panchayat, Jillelguda and report compliance. 26. Further it is stated that the 1st respondent in his Lr.No.GP/Jillelguda/100/2008, dt.18-11-2008 had submitted his report and stated that the permission was given on 17-5-2008 for construction sheds but a building has been constructed in deviation of actual plan/permission. Therefore, a notice was issued to stop the construction which is deviating the actual plan and the construction was completed in the month of August, 2008 and the owner has given an undertaking that he will correct/verify the construction duly paying appropriate amount to the competent authorities. Now the civil/construction work is not voing on and the land scrapping and plantation is going on as per the instruction of the 2nd respondent the entire construction work is stopped. 27. It is also stated that after careful consideration of the report of the 1st respondent, the stay orders issued on 13-11-2008 against the construction of Function Hall in Sy.No.93 of Jillelguda has been vacated by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.547/2008-B1 (Pts), dt.20-11-2008 and directed the 1st respondent to take action accordingly. 28. Certain submissions were made elaborately in relation to the series of events. The press reports on which reliance had been placed need no serious consideration at the hands of this Court. However, a quasi judicial authority while vacating the interim order is expected to put the opposite parties on notice, hear the parties and pass appropriate orders. As can be seen from the records, the 2nd respondent had not followed the said procedure. It is needless to say that if any improvements as such had been made, such improvements also would be subject to the further orders which may be made in the partition action. 29. Be that as it may, since the order under challenge had been made by the 2nd respondent without affording opportunity to the writ petitioners, the said order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent to give opportunity to the contesting parties and again pass an order afresh in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to all the affected parties. However, Sri Vijayasen Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners would submit that even by that time, the construction work was over. It is needless to say that predominantly it is a question of fact. 30. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is hereby allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 24th November, 2009 smr