WP/21245/2006 of Chitti Reddy Narasimha Reddy S/o Late Pulla Reddy Vs Parkal Gram Panchayat, rep by Executive Officer, on 26 December 2006

Conclusion

-ORDER:

This Court ordered notice before admission on 12-10-2006 and status quo was granted for a limited period,which is being extended from time to time.

2. Heard Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, the learned Counselrepresenting the petitioner and Sri Prem Sagar, thelearned standing Counsel representing respondent.

3. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondent in trying todemolish the shop rooms of the petitioner without issuingnotice and without passing any orders on the applicationsubmitted by the petitioner on 14-8-2006 for grant ofpermission as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, opposed toprinciples of natural justice and contrary to the Rules andLaw and consequently direct the respondent not toproceed against the shop rooms of the petitioner withoutdue process of Law in the interest of justice and passsuch other suitable orders.

4. It is stated that by the petitioner that the petitioner isthe absolute owner and possessor of 480 sq.yards of sitein Sy.No.1112 of Parkal village and his mother purchased this extent wayback in 1960 under two registered saledeeds and one plot is in an extent of 315 sq.yds andanother is in an extent of 165 sq.yards. Subsequently, asuit was filed by one Sadanandam for SpecificPerformance of the agreement of sale stating that hisfather executed an agreement of sale in his favour on 12-4-1989 and after the death of his father, the saidSadanandam filed suit against the petitioner, his mother,brother and sisters and the said suit was dismissed andthe said matter was carried by way of appeal to this CourtA.S.No.987/97 and the same was dismissed on 3-3-2004. It is also stated that after the entire dispute wasover, the petitioner was given this property by his motherand there is no dispute among the family members andafter this property had fallen to his share, in order toconstruct shop rooms in the said site, the petitioner madean application to the respondent Panchayat through thePresident of Panchayat on 14-8-2006 along with a plan. The said application and the plan were received by thethen Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mr.Bandari Babu on14-8-2006 itself. Ever since, his application for grant ofpermission is with the respondent Panchayat and sincethere was no response from the Panchayat, thinking thatthe permission was approved under the Gram PanchayatRules and bylaws, the petitioner constructed the shop

rooms. It is also stated that the shop rooms constructedby the petitioner are in accordance with the Buildingbylaws and they are not contrary and objectionable to theRules. It is also stated that even if some deviations arethere from the Rules and Regulations, the petitioner isentitled to obtain a revised sanction as per Rule 29 of theA.P. Gram Panchayat Land Development (Lay our andbuilding) Rules, 2002. It is also further stated that thepetitioner submitted the plan and requisition for grant ofpermission on 14-8-2006 and the Sarpanch at therelevant point of time received on behalf of the GramPanchayat and the said application is still pending with therespondent authorities. It is neither rejected norsanctioned so far. Rule 26 of the Rules dealing withSanction or Refusal of permission clearly says that the layout plans/building plans with drawings and specificationsmay be sanctioned with or without modifications ordirections as are deemed necessary are refused by theExecutive Authority within a period of 15 days in case ofindividual residential buildings. “Where no orders arecommunicated by the Executive Authority of sanction orrefusal of the permission, the Executive Authority shall bedeemed to have permitted the proposed permission andthe owner may go ahead with the work provided that the same is in accordance with the Rules.” Therefore, thespecific stand taken by the petitioner is that under thedeeming provision of Rule 26, referred to supra, hisapplication for grant of permission is deemed to havebeen approved. It is also further stated that the petitionerhad completed the construction of shop rooms and thenthe trouble started when the new elected body came intopower recently. It is also stated that the local GramPanchayat politics also are playing a various role todemolish his shop rooms and the officials of therespondent orally warned the petitioner to demolish theshop rooms stating that the petitioner is not having anysanctioned plan. The petitioner also states that he hadbrought it to their notice that his application is still pendingand they came to his shop rooms on 11-10-2006 andinformed the petitioner that within three days the petitionermay have to remove the shop rooms voluntarily if not theywill remove the shops officially after three days. In suchcircumstances, the petitioner approached this Court.5. In the counter affidavit of respondent several of theaverments made in the affidavit filed in support of the WritPetition had been denied. It is averred in para 2 of thecounter affidavit that the writ petitioner started constructionof shops without making any application to the GramPanchayat. Specific stand is taken that it is false to say that the petitioner made an application to the Sarpanch on14-8-2006 along with the plan. The writ petitioner has togiven application along with necessary documents as perG.O.Ms.No.67 PR&RD (PTS-IV) dated 26-2-2002 to theGram Panchayat. Further specific stand is taken that theaverment made that the writ petitioner gave application toMr. Bandaru Babu, Incharge Sarpanch, is not correct. Butit is stated that the said Mr.Bandaru Babu was InchargeSarpanch for one month only. The writ petitioner is notentitled to obtain a revised sanction as per Rule 29 ofG.O.Ms.No. 67 PR&RD (PTS-IV) dated 26-2-2002. Rule29 reads as hereunder:- “Deviations during construction/undertaking uplayout works:- If during the execution of anybuilding construction any deviation is made fromthe sanctioned plan, the owner shall obtain revisedsanction as per the above procedure and rules.”

It is also stated that Rule 29 is applicable to person whomade application to Gram Panchayat and obtainedpermissions and made some deviations from thesanctioned plan during construction and hence the saidRule is not applicable to the case of the writ petitioner. Thus specific stand is taken in the facts andcircumstances, the writ petitioner cannot take advantageof the deemed provision.

6. In the light of the facts and circumstances wellexplained and also in the light of Rules 26 and 29,referred to supra, this Court is not inclined to express anyopinion relating to the facts and circumstances whether, infact, an application was made in accordance with law andprocedure by the writ petitioner to the then InchargeSarpanch or not, inasmuch as, specific stand is taken thatno such application was made by the writ petitioner, thewrit petitioner herein is permitted to make an application inaccordance with law to the respondent and therespondent to consider the said application and disposeof the same in accordance with law and procedure withina period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the saidapplication and till appropriate decision is taken in thisregard, status quo obtaining as on today to be maintained.7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition isdisposed of. No order as to costs.

26[th] December, 2006smr

________________

Justice P.S.Narayana