Single judge disposed of a writ petition challenging construction initiation in respondent property, noting subsequent permission was granted, and advised challenging the sanctioned plan if illegal.
Writ petition disposed; petitioner advised to challenge sanctioned plan if not legal; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No.5713 of 2022
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Gram Panchayat and Rural Development for respondent No. 1, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.2 and 3, learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.6 and Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
The present writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in initiating action against the unlawful and high handed constructions being commenced by respondent Nos. 7 to 12 in the property of the petitioners admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Sy.No.526/3 of Chettupalli Village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject property. The respondent Nos. 7 to 12 without there being any permission from the respondent authorities are making construction in the land of the petitioners. It is further submitted that a representation was also made to the respondents not to allow respondent Nos. 7 to 12 to make illegal constructions. But no action has been taken on the respondent Nos. 7 to 12.
2
Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 7 to 12 filed counter denying that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject property and they have obtained permission for such construction from the Gram Panchayat. But the same was granted pending writ petition. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents are carrying illegal construction as they were granted permission by the Gram Panchayat. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Learned Standing Counsel on instructions submits that on 30.04.2022, the 5th respondent granted permission in favour of respondent Nos. 7 to 12. Therefore, the present writ petition becomes infructuous.
Having regard to the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the view that the petitioners may challenge the plan sanctioned by the 5th respondent if it is not in accordance with law.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J
Dt.20.07.2022 BSP
3
108
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No.5713 of 2022
Dated:20.07.2022
BSP
Petitioners
Gram Panchayat and Rural Development
Revenue
Home
Respondents 4 and 5
Respondents 7 to 12
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
