THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI W.P.No.17488 of 2009 Between:
V. Rajeshwarappa PETITIONER AND
1. The District Panchayat Officer, R.R. District, Hyderabad, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order issued by the District Panchayat Officer, R.R. District, the 1st respondent herein, vide proceedings No.779/2007-B1 (PTS), dated 20.08.2009.
2. Heard Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondents 1 and 4, Sri P. Raghavender Reddy learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri N. Vijender Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6, apart from perusing the material available on record.
3. Filtering the unnecessary details the facts which are essential for disposal of the present writ petition are as under.
According to the petitioner, he made an application to the Gram Panchayat, Ravirala, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, seeking permission for construction of a house in the open area admeasuring 700 sq. yds, on 09.10.2008. The 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 31.10.2008 accorded permission in favour of the petitioner for construction of house. Against the said permission, the unofficial respondents 5 and 6 filed an appeal before the 1st respondent- District Panchayat Officer, on 22.05.2008 and the 1st respondent by virtue of Memo bearing No.779/2008-B1(PTS), dated 22.12.2008 directed to stop construction. Subsequently, by way of an order vide proceedings No.779/2007-B1(PTS), dated 20.08.2009, the 1st respondent revoked the construction permission granted earlier in favour of the petitioner and made certain observations in the said order. Aggrieved by the said order the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. In response to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court on 12.10.2009, counter affidavits have been filed by the 2nd respondent and respondent Nos.5 and 6 denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in the direction of justifying the impugned action.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 22.05.2008 passed by the 1st respondent- District Panchayat Officer is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very basis for passing the impugned order is the report submitted by the 4th respondent-Divisional Panchayat Officer. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the 4th respondent conducted enquiry without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as such, the impugned action, which culminated in passing of the order dated 20.08.2009, is in total violation of the principles of natural justice.
5. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader basing on the instructions received from respondents 1 and 4 that the orders impugned in the present writ petition are in conformity with the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made thereunder and the 1st respondent is perfectly justified in passing the impugned order in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayt and the counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 that there is neither illegality nor any infirmity in the impugned action, as such, the issue in the present writ petition is not amenable for any judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. As evident from the material before this Court, the principal contention of the petitioner is that the only basis for passing the impugned order dated 20.08.2009 is the report submitted by the 4th respondent vide LR.No.B/105/09-B1(PTS), dated 29.07.2009 without giving any notice and affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. According to the petitioner the said action is highly illegal and arbitrary besides being violtive of the principles of natural justice.
7. This Court finds sufficient force in the said contention. In fact, the said aspect is not seriously disputed by the respondents. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the present issue needs consideration afresh by the 1st respondent after giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings No.779/2007-B1 (PTS), dated 20.08.2009 passed by the 1st respondent-District Panchayat Officer and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh enquiry in accordance with law after giving notice and opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as other stake holders. It is also made clear that pending the said exercise by the 1st respondent, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by all stake holders to the present writ petition. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not proceed with any construction pending such exercise by the District Panchayt Officer. No costs.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
21st October, 2014 Js.