THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.27046 of 2010 Date : 1-11-2010 Between : Gattu Srinivas s/o.Gangaram .. Petitioner And The Gram Panchayath, Raikal, represented by Panchayat Secretary, Raikal village and Mandal, Karimnagar District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri K.Venumadhav Counsel for respondents : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “….to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not taking any action against the illegal construction which is being made by respondent No.4 in Hanuman street, Raikal village and Mandal, Karimnagar District considering the representation filed by the petitioner dated 6-10-2010 as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice ad also violative of provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take necessary action against the illegal construction which is being made by respondent No.4 in Hanuman street, Raikal village and Mandal, Karimnagar District considering the representation filed by the petitioner dated 6-10-2010 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” At the hearing, Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed that under Rule 28 of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, notified in G.O.Ms.No.67, PR & RD (Pts.IV) dated 26-2-2002, the executive authority or the District Panchayat Officer may revoke any permission issued under the Rules whenever it is found that such permission was obtained by fraudulent means or by misrepresentation of facts. In the instant case, since a resolution was passed by the Panchayat granting building permission, the petitioner is entitled to approach the District Panchayat Officer for revocation of the permission granted in favour of respondent No.4. In view of availability of effective alternative remedy to the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the said remedy. If and when the petitioner approaches respondent No.3 by way of a representation, he shall entertain the same and take decision in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and respondent No.4. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.34559/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date : 1-11-2010 Note: Furnish copy in a week. AM