Telangana High Court
WP/23128/2004 of Satyanarayana Goud, Vs The District Panchayat Officer, on 28 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 23128 of 2004 Between: Satyanarayana Goud, S/o Laxmaiah, R/o 2-8/1, Marikal village,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO : 23128 of 2004
Between:
Satyanarayana Goud, S/o Laxmaiah,
R/o 2-8/1, Marikal village, Dhanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The District Panchayat Officer, Mahabubnagar District at Mahabubnagar District.2 The Gram Panchayat, Marikal Village, Dhanwada Mandal, MahabubnagarDistrict, rep. by its Secretary.
3 Smt. S. Chennamma W/o Chennaiah,
R/o Marikal Village, Dhanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District,
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue an Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamusdeclaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedingsL1/2004 dt. 8-12-2004 for demolition of the House bearing No. 2-8/1, of the petitionerat Marikal village Dhanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, as illegal unlawful andcontrary to law and against the principles of natural justice and consequently directthe respondent not to demolish the same without proper enquiry and opportunity andto pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.DAMODAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV.
The Court at the stage of admission made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner claims to be owner of house No.2-8/1, Marikal village, havingconstructed the same in the year 1986 by obtaining permission from the GramPanchayat dated 27-2-1986. It is stated that the petitioner has opened a door to hiscompound facing eastern side of his house, duly obtaining permission from therespondents 1 and 2. Questioning the said action, the third respondent herein statedto have filed suit in O.S.No.15 of 1998 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge,Narayanapet and further filed a C.M.A.No.54 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Court,Narayanpet. It is stated that the trial Court and Appellate Court had held that thepetitioner has not encroached the public road and thereafter the third respondenthas also filed a Civil Revision Petition before this Court in C.R.P.No.3065 of 2000. Itis further stated that the third respondent filed Writ Petition NO. 8084 of 2000 beforethis Court and the same was disposed of directing the respondents therein toconduct an enquiry into the allegation of encroachment of public road and to takeaction under section 96 and 98 of the A.P.Gram Panchayat Act, 1994. Pursuant tothe said orders, the second respondent issued the impugned order directing thepetitioner to remove the encroachment made on the road within seven days to keepopen 12 feet road, else the same would be demolished. The petitioner stated tohave filed a representation dated 11-12-2004 to the second respondent and filed thepresent writ petition questioning the order dated 8-12-2004 on 13-12-2004 itself.
This Court while issuing notice to the respondents, on 13-12-2004 directed tomaintain status quo existing as on the said date. Pursuant to the notice, the learnedGovernment Pleader for Panchayat Raj produced the relevant record and submittedthat pursuant to orders of this Court in W.P.8084 of 2000, the Executive Officer of thesecond respondent Gram Panchayat has initiated an enquiry and submitted a reportstating that the petitioner herein has encroached upon certain portion of the land, which is meant for Cart Track. It is also stated that final orders were not yet passed.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader forPanchayat Raj and Standing Counsel for second respondent. Counsel appearingfor respective parties, agreed for disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage.
Conclusion
The petitioner having filed an explanation/representation to the secondrespondent on 11-12-2004, without waiting for passing of final orders, rushed to thisCourt, by filing the present writ petition. More over, the record reveals that an enquirywas conducted in the matter and a report was also submitted and final orders are yetto be passed.
In the above circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writpetition directing the respondents to pass final orders in accordance with lawexpeditiously. Till such time status quo order granted by this Court on 13-12-2004shall continue. It is needless to mention that, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the finalorders, it is open for him to challenge the same before appropriate forum.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
_____________
N.V.RAMANA,J
28-12-2004
TVK
// TRUE COPY //
..... REGISTRAR
1 The District Panchayat Officer, Mahabubnagar District at Mahabubnagar District.
2 The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Marikal Village, Dhanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.
3 Smt. S. Chennamma W/o Chennaiah,
R/o Marikal Village, Dhanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, 4.2CCs to G.P. for Panchayat Raj, High Court of A.P. buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)
5.2CD copies
6.2CCs to
Form-NIC-OGS/WP{AVLR}