THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22495 of 2011 Date: 10.08.2011 Between: B. Anjaiah … Petitioner and The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Chandrampet Village, Siricilla Mandal, Karimnagar District and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22495 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri S.S.N. Moorthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings No.GP/45/2011, dated 16.7.2011 issued by the 1st respondent. 3. The petitioner claims to have purchased land in an extent of 242 square yards in Sy.No.1338, situated near H.No.5-25/1, Jhoti Nagar, Chandrampet Village,, Siricilla Mandal, Karimnagar District, vide document No.3059/2010, dated 5.5.2010 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Siricilla. On 20.6.2010, the petitioner made an application to respondent No.2 for grant of building permission for construction of compound wall. Respondent No.2, vide its resolution GP.No.61/2010, dated 16.8.2010 granted permission to the petitioner to construct the compound wall. When the petitioner was proceeding with the construction of compound wall, respondent No.1 issued the impugned notice dated 16.7.2011 allegedly at the instance of one Sri B.Mallesam. 4. A perusal of the said notice shows that in the complaint received by respondent No.1 from Sri B.Mallesam, it is alleged that the construction is being made by the petitioner without layout approval and by encroaching upon the road. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to remove the structure, failing which, the same will be removed at the expenses of the petitioner. 5. At the hearing, Sri S.S.N.Moorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that his client has been constructing the compound wall strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and that the impugned notice is issued at the instance of one B. Mallesam, who is a rival to the petitioner. He further submits that respondent No.1 without even calling for the petitioner’s explanation has unilaterally come to the conclusion that his client has encroached upon the public road and raised construction and therefore, the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. After hearing Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I am of the opinion that without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case, respondent No.1 cannot conclude that the petitioner has encroached upon the public road. So long as the construction permission granted in favour of the petitioner subsists and construction is undertaken in accordance with the approved plan, the respondents cannot interfere with his right to construct the compound wall. If the respondents are of the opinion that the petitioner has encroached upon the public road or that the construction permission was granted overlooking the fact that there was no approved layout, they are entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for cancellation of the permission for construction of compound wall. Till such action is taken, the respondents cannot interfere with the petitioner’s right to construct the compound wall in accordance with the sanctioned plan or to remove the compound wall. 7. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside with liberty to the respondents to issue appropriate notice and take action in accordance with law. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 10.08.2011. NOTE: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22495 of 2011 10.08.2011 (Msr)