THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.20598 of 2009 Between:
Gatadi Gundu Gangadhar PETITIONER AND
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
“….issue any appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.1262, dated 28.8.2009 rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Proceedings No.566/2008-B5(Pts) dated 27.10.2008 confirming the permission granted by the 4th Respondent in favour of the 5th respondent for construction of G.I.Sheet roofed room and compound wall in the Petitioner's land in Sy.No. 461 extent 0-6 1/4 situated at Perkit Village, Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad District vide Permit No. 10/2007 dated 22.9.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 apart from the order passed by the competent Civil Court i.e., Principal Junior Civil Judge, Armoor dated 31.7.2009 in O.S.No.197 of 2003 and set aside the same….”
2. Heard Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondents 1 to 3, Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5, apart from perusing the material available on record.
3. Filtering unnecessary details the facts, which are essential for disposal of the present writ petition, are as under:
Challenging the building permission granted by the 4th respondent in favour of the 5th respondent vide orders G.P.O.No.10/2007, dated 22.09.2008, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Panchayat Officer, the 3rd respondent herein, and the District Panchayat Officer vide proceedings No.566/2008-B5(Pts), dated 27.10.2008 while directing the parties to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance, made certain observations. Felt aggrieved by the said order passed by the District Panchayat Officer, the petitioner filed a revision before the State Government, the 1st respondent herein, on 2.12.2008. The State Government by virtue of the orders in G.O.Rt.No.1262, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (PTS.IV) Department, dated 28.08.2009, rejected the said revision filed by the petitioner.
4. In the above background, challenging the orders passed by the Government, District Panchayat Officer and the 4th respondent-Gram Panchayat, the present writ petition came to be filed.
5. This Court granted interim suspension on 24.09.2009 and subsequently issued Rule Nisi on 6.10.2010 while making the interim order absolute. Responding to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court, counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents, denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the direction of justifying the impugned action.
6. A perusal of the material available before this Court discloses that in the instant case, as against the orders passed by the 4th respondent-Panchayat Secretary, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Panchayat Officer and the said appeal ended in dismissal, and as against the same, the matter was carried in revision before the State Government and the State Government also rejected the revision by virtue of the impugned Governmental order.
7. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that in fact as against the order passed by the Executive authority appeal lies to the Gram Panchayat but not to the District Panchayat Officer, under Section 128 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The learned counsel, while referring to the said provision of law and while referring to the law laid down by this
[1]
Court in K. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors. , has requested this Court to permit the petitioner to avail the said remedy in accordance with law.
8. Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. The request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to permit the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy under Section 128 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, is accepted as this Court treats the said request as reasonable one.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the Gram Panchayat under Section 128(1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order against the orders of the 5th respondent dated 22.09.2008. If any such appeal is filed within the time stipulated above, the Gram Panchayat shall pass appropriate orders, without being influenced by the order of the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.121262, dated 28.08.2009 and the order of the District Panchayat Officer vide Proceedings No.566/2008-B5(Pts), dated 27.10.2008, within a period of three months thereafter. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
25th November, 2014 Js.
[1] 2009 (6) ALD 142