IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 23688 of 2000 Between: 1 Vidyashankar. A, S/o. Lakshman Murthy R/o. 4-2-21 C, Krishna Nagar, madanpalli, Chittoor District. 2 N.Sunitha, W/o. Balamurli R/o. 57, APADCF, Lalapet, Secunderabad. 3 K.Jagapathi, S/o. Chakrapani, R/o. 1-9-129/17F, Ramnagar, Hyderabad, ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District panchayatraj Officer, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Gram Panchayat, Jillelguda Village, Saroornagar Mandl, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Surpanch, Jillelguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 The Mishra Dattu Nigam Ltd (MIDHANI), Rep b y its Deputy General Manager, Kanchanbabh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or direction, declaring the order dt 13.10.2000 passed in proceedings No. B2/2662/2000 passed by the 1st respondent is illegal, contrary and without jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice and Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.K.SESHARAJYAM GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 23688 of 2000 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the order dated 13.10.2000 passed in Proceedings No.B2/2662/2000 by 1st respondent as arbirary, illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, they are the owners of plots in S.Nos. 142, 144 and 145 of Jillelaguda village, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. They had purchased the said plots from M/s. Sama Yadi Reddy and Sama Rami Reddy, who are the original pattadars of the said lands. The original pattadars, after obtaining sanctioned layout, converted the agricultural land into residential plots and sold the same to the petitioners and others. Pursuant to purchase of the said plots, the petitioners have applied for permissions to the 2nd respondent for construction of residential houses and the same were granted. The petitioners proceeded with the construction of houses in accordance with the sanctioned plan and constructions were finalised up to roof level under the execution of M/s. Mansani Constructions (Promotors & Builders). While so, 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 13.10.2000 suspending the building construction permissions issued by the Sarpanch of Jillelaguda Gram Panchayat and further directing the Sarpanch to stop all ongoing constructions. This order passed by the 1st respondent, according to the petitioners, is arbitrary and without jurisdiction. According to them, permissions were granted by the competent authority i.e.the Executive Officer of Jillelaguda Gram Panchayat and based on the said permissions, constructions have been started long back and they are at the advanced stage. For any reason if any party is aggrieved by the grant of permissions under the provisions of Panchayatraj Act, there is a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the Act before the Gram Panchayat itself and second appeal is provided to the District Panchayat Officer against the order of the Gram Panchayat under Section 128 (2) of the Act. There is no suo motu power conferred on the District Panchayatraj Officer to initiate proceedings of this nature. The power conferred is only to interfere as a second appellate authority and not otherwise. The Midhani has no authority to address letter to the District Panchayat Officer and the action initiated based on such a letter itself is per se illegal. Merely because Midhani is a Government company, it has no special status under the Act. If for any reason it is aggrieved, the only remedy is by way of filing an appeal before the appellate authority. In the instant case, no apeal is filed, but straightaway, based on the letter addressed by the Midhani, without application of mind and without reference to the facts of the case, a blanket order was passed by 1st respondent suspending the permissions granted to the petitioners to construct houses. The District Panchayat Officer ought not to have entertained any letter for passing the impugned order and, in any event, the District Panchayat Officer ought not to have entertained any proceedings recording passing observations made by the apex Court with reference to the facts of a particular case. It is further stated that there are residential colonies developed for 4th respondent- company employees, which are abutting the company itself. The Chandrayangutta huge Electricity Sub-Station is located very near to the Midhani, which is of the same distance as that of the lay-out of the petitioners. In fact, the electricity being generated and supplied by the said Sub-Station would be more dangerous to the Midhani but there seems to be no objection for the same. So far as the petitioners are concerned, all sorts of objections are sought to be raised to stall the constructions by putting the petitioners to great hardship. The residential colonies developed by the company under the name of Midhani Nagar itself are situated near the company and in view of the same, there was no reason for stalling the construction activity of another colony, that too, in a private patta land. In the absence of any claim or title for possession, it has no authority to stall the constructions. If any area is to be reserved, it is for them to reserve the belt area to safeguard the interests of the company but without making any such reservations, the property of citizens cannot be deprived of in this illegal and arbitrary manner. In fact, the same land, on which valid layout were obtained before the plots were laid, was notified for acquisition by the very same authority for the purpose of developing Midhani Residential Township and subsequently, for some other reason, it was denotified. The very claim of Midhani itself is to be rejected in limini on the ground of laches, as the constructions are at advanced stage. The lands purchased by the petitioners and surrounding lands are earmarked for residential usage by the HUDA under the Master Plan. Therefore, the respondents cannot interfere with the right of the petitioners in constructing the houses and occupying the same. All the petitioners are middle class employees and they have invested their entire savings with a fond hope to own house in the City of Hyderabad and by the arbitrary and illegal impugned order of 1st respondent, they are restrained from proceeding with the construction of houses. Hence, this writ petition. The 1st respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated in the counter affidavit that according to G.O.Ms.No.408 M.A. & U.D. Department dated 8.8.1991, the power of sanction of building permissions by the Gram Panchayats shall be exercised in respect of only final layouts approved by HUDA and Panchayats shall not approve plans in old Panchayat layouts before getting such old layouts regularised by HUDA duly following prescribed procedure. As per Schedule-I of the said G.O., Jillelaguda Gram Panchayat is within the jurisdiction of HUDA. In this regard, the Inspecting Officer i.e. The Extension Officer (Pts), Maheshwaram has reported that the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jillelaguda has issued building construction permissions in 35 cases in the layout plan of S.Nos.142, 144 and 145, which has not been approved or regularised by HUDA and it is in clear violation of the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.408 dated 8.8.1991. Besides this, the authorities of Midhani have represented through letter dated 4.10.2000 that the Gram Panchayat, Jillelaguda has issued building construction permissions within a green belt of 1.5 kms. i.e. adjacent to the wall of Midhani Super Alloys Plant, which is a hazardous industry and dangerous to huan life. Taking into account the said violation of Government rules and the representation of Midhani, the permissions granted by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jillelaguda in 35 cases have been suspended in public inerest vide Proceedings.No.B2/2662/2000 dated 13.10.2000 pending further probe into the matter and a direction was given not to grant any further permissions in the alleged layout of S.Nos.142,144 and 145. According to Section 44 of A.P. Panchayatraj Raj Act, 1994 the District Panchayat Officer, Rangareddy District is having jurisdiction over the Gram Panchayats in entire Rangareddy District and he should take immediate action against any illegal activities of Gram Panchayats of Rangareddy District as per Rule 2(c) of G.O.Ms.No.70, PR & RD dated 29.2.2000. Therefore, construction permissions in S.Nos. 142, 144 and 145 of Gram Panchayat, Jillelaguda of Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District were suspended based on the report of the Extension Officer (Pts), Maheshwaram, who is the subordinate officer of the District Panchayat Officer, Rangareddy District. Hence, the District Panchayat Officer exercised the power under Section 44 of the A.P. Panchayatraj Act, 1994 and according to A.P.P.R. (Powers and the functioning of District Panchayat Officers, Divisional Panchayat Officers and Extension Officers) Rules, 2000 made in G.O.Ms.No.70 dated 29.2.2000, suspended the building permissions granted to plot holders in S.Nos.142, 144 and 145 by Jillelaguda Gram Panchayat by orders dated 13.10.2000, as the same is without the approval of HUDA. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition filed by the petitioners and the same is liable to be dismissed. The 4th respondent also filed a detailed counter stating that Midhani is a Government of India's Enterprise under Ministry of Defence, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1973 and went into commercial production during 1981-82. Its primary activity is manufacturing of strategic defence and other critical sectors such as atomic, space etc. Its furnaces are operated at 3,000 C. It is a notified hazardous industry under Item No.2 of Schedule I of the Factories Act. Its medium of fuel for operation is LPG and the average monthly consumption is about 4.00 tonnes. The 4th respondent has built 4 Bullets i.e. Storage tankers, each with a capacity of 60 tonnes, near the boundary wall on southern side. Adjacent to the compound wall on outer side, 5 meters' place was left for patrolling purpose. Around Midhani, there are other defence establishments such as DMRL, Bharat Dynamics Limited etc. Most of he area, especially on southern side, is surrounded by open agricultural lands. For the first time in November, 1997 the Officers of 4th respondent have noticed certain activity other than cultivation in the said open land and immediately, by leter dated 3.12.97, the same was brouht to the notice of all the concerned authorities including the HUDA and the District Collector, Rangareddy District. In pursuance of the same, HUDA has addressed a letter dated 11.3.1998 by enclosing a zonal development plan of Kothapeta calling upon the 4th respondent to earmark the place where conversion should not be granted. The 4th respondent replied vide letter dated 16.5.1998 that the plan enclosed to the letter dated 11.3.1998 does not relate to Hayatnagar Zone where the site in question is situated and requested to provide the map of Hayathnagar zone. As the map was getting delayed, officers of 4th respondent were deputed to discuss the matter in preson with HUDA authorities. Since then the 4th respondent has been pursuing through various letters to all the authorities cncerned and explaning them about the ignorance of safety laws and apprehension of danger to the safety of the lives and property of public in general. It is further stated that the land in quesion is adjacent to the boundary wall of Midhani and in spite of best efforts of 4th respondent, the petitioners herein and others have managed to get permission from Gram Panchayat without the intervention of the HUDA. The writ petition is premature as the permissions already granted were only suspended pending further enquiry into the matter. The 4th respondent is interested only in protecting the lives and property of public in general and to follow the requirements laid down under the law. Therefore, the 1st respondent has rightly suspended the permissions granted by the Sarpanch, Jillelaguda Gram Panchayat for construction of houses pending further enquiry and in the interest of safety of human lives, no permission should be granted for construction activity for residential purpose close to the boundary wall of hazardous industries like Midhani and, as such, the writ petition needs to be dismissed with a direction to authorities not to grant such permission and maintain green belt of at least 1 km around Midhani, particularly on its southern side where huge LPG Bullets are located. There is no necessity of going into all the details. From a reading of the writ petition and counter averments, it reveals that the petitioners are carrying on construction in a private land nearer and outside the compound wall of Midhani. May be, it is a hazardous industry and there is danger to the inhabitants nearby the compound wall. But, that itself does not mean, without putting the petitioners on notice the permissions granted by the Gram Panchayat, Jillelaguda could be suspended by the District Panchayat Officer in an arbitrary manner. While admitting the writ petition, interim suspension of the impugned order was granted on 4.12.2000 and it was made absolute on 16.7.2002. Now the learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the entire construction activity has been completed and the petitioners have been residing in their respective houses. Be that as it may, admittedly the land in question is not denotified as required under the law and it is located outside the compound wall of Midhani. If 4th respondent-Midhani is a hazardous industry, it is supposed to take all precautions to safeguard the lives of the public by locating such LPG Bullets etc. at a far away place inside the compound wall. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that as per the Master Plan, Jillelaguda village is included in the residential zone; therefore, the petitioners are entitled for lay-out permission as per law and that no notice of any kind was issued before passing the impugned order, particularly, after the construction activity is taken up. This fact is not disputed in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by 1st respondent dated 13.10.2000 is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. However, in view of the fact that safety of human lives, according to the Midhani, is involved, the 1st respondent is directed to conduct a detailed enquiry into the matter, after putting the petitioners, respondents 2 to 4, the HUDA and all the concerned on notice and hearing them in detail, and pass appropriate orders, as per law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: -7-2009. MVB.