THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No. 658 of 2011 Dated: 2-9-2011 Between Pydi Laxmana Rao …Appellant And Motepalli Basava Raju and others …Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The appeal is preferred by the 4th respondent in the writ petition against the order dated 28-7-2011 of the learned Single Judge rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking vacation of the interim order dated 25-3-2011 passed in WPMP No. 9758 of 2011 and making the interim order dated 25-3-2011 absolute. The 1st respondent herein filed the writ petition seeking a “Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not taking any action against the 4th respondent from making construction of apartment at Subrahmanyeswara Swamy vari Temple Street, Jangaredygudem, West Godavari District by deviating from the approved plan and also contrary to the A.P. Grampanchayat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules, 2002 by considering my representation dt. 17-03- 2011 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to ensure that the 4th respondent shall not make any construction by deviating from the approved plan and also in violation of A.P. Grampanchayat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules, 2002.” In the counter-affidavit in the writ petition, the Grampanchayat had stated as under: “I submit that the 4th respondent herein submitted application to the Gram Panchat seeking permission for construction in an extent of 500 Sq. Yds in Sy.No. 451 of Jangaredygudem Village. The said application was considered by the Gram Panchayat and after following the due process the permission was granted and the plan annexed to the application for construction was approved on 19.11.2010. Thereafter the Gram Panchayat has also issued a formal notice on 19.11.2010 itself not to dump the material on the road and also not to waste the drinking water while taking up the proposed construction. I submit that on 28.02.2011 the petitioner herein made a complaint against the 4th respondent herein stating that the 4th respondent herein has deviated the plan approved by the Gram Panchayat by encroaching upon the land belongs to the petitioner and his brother. In pursuance of the said complaint this respondent has issued notice to the 4th respondent to construct the building according to the plan approved by the Gram Panchayat and also warned if there is any deviation the plan approved by the Gram Panchayat would be cancelled by taking action according to the Pancyayat raj Act, 1994. Again the petitioner herein given another complaint on 17.03.2011 repeating his request to take action against the 4th respondent for taking steps to construct the building according to the approved plan. This respondent once again has issued notice to the 4th respondent on 18.03.2011 but there was no response from the 4th respondent. In view of the frequent complaints against the 4th respondent this respondent has placed the issue before the Committee of the Gram Panchayat. On 31.03.2011 the Committee of the Gram Panchayat has passed unanimous resolution to stop the construction being made by the 4th respondent and after getting the report from the concerned engineer according to which the penalty has to be imposed by following the Panchayat Raj Act. In pursuance of the said resolution the respondent has issued show cause notice to the 4th respondent herein on 31.03.2011 itself for which 4th respondent has given a reply that he has not deviated the plan approved by the Gram Panchayat and he has constructed according to the “Vaasthu” in the land belongs to him only for which he is ready to pay the fine imposed by the authorities according to the Act. I submit that the respondent has once again inspected the construction being made by the 4th respondent along with the panel engineer of the Panchayat raj institutions and verified the deviations. According to the report of the engineer the eastern side and northern side there is no deviation which is according to the plan only, but on the western side and the southern side according to the approved plan the set-back has to be maintained 1.50 mts but the 4th respondent has maintained only 0.95 mts on the west side and 0.75 on the southern side. The set-backs maintained by the 4th respondent is permissible by imposing the fine according to section 137 of the Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and the rules made there under in G.O.Ms.No. 67, Dt. 26.02.2002. In view of the same this respondent has imposed a penalty of Rs.9,000/- which was paid by the 4th respondent on 06.04.2011 to the Gram Panchayat. The stage of the construction is completed Ground Floor and 1st Floor unfinished. In pursuance of the orders of this Hon’ble Court Dt. 25.03.2011 passed in the above writ petition which was received by this respondent on 09.04.2011 this respondent has asked the 4th respondent to stop the construction. Now the 4th respondent has stopped the construction.” The learned Single Judge declined to vacate the stay on the reasoning that the compounding of the offence and collection of penalty of Rs.9,000/- from the appellant herein does not tantamount to regularisation of the unauthorized construction. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Sri Chidambaram, learned counsel for the 1st respondent; learned Govt. Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3; and Sri Elisha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-Gram Panchayat have conjointly submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the pleadings in the writ petition, the writ petition itself may be allowed instead of relegating hearing of the writ petition to the learned Single Judge; in the context of the order under appeal. In view of the conjoint submission by all the learned counsel, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for, in the light of the relief sought in the writ petition adverted to above. There shall however be no order as to costs. As the substantive writ petition itself is disposed and on consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the appeal does not survive for adjudication and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 2nd September, 2011 ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J GRR