Remanded

Pasuparthi Gopi Krishna, v. Prl.Secy., Panchayath Rural devel. dept.

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Feb 2023WP/2022/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of three pending writ petitions regarding a dispute between neighbours over a partition wall. It directed the Gram Panchayat to verify building permissions for one house and conduct a physical inspection of the wall's stability, ensuring due notice and opportunity of hearing to the respondent before taking action.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Gram Panchayat to verify building permissions and inspect the partition wall's stability after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Pasuparthi Gopi Krishna, Vs Prl.Secy., Panchayath… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.2022, 18424 of 2018 & 23213 of 2022

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

As all the three writ petitions arise out of disputes between the same set of persons and relate to the same issue, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶5

Heard Sri T. Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.18424 of 2018 and W.P.No.23213 of 2022 and Smt. G.Padmavathi learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.2022 of 2018.

¶6

The background of the present set of writ petitions is

¶7

as follows:

¶8

Sri Pasuparthi Gopi Krishna (petitioner) in W.P.No.2022 of 2018 and Sri Madallapalli Jagadeesh are owners of adjoining properties which are separated by a partition wall which is said to be 18 inches wide. This property is situated at Bazaar Street, Kothapet Village, Chandragiri Post and Mandal, Chittoor District. A dispute has arisen between these two neighbours on account of the partition wall separating the properties of these two persons. Sri P. Gopi Krishna (petitioner) had approached this Court in W.P.No.2022 of 2018 seeking a direction to the Gram Panchayat and the Tahsildar to remove the partition wall on the ground that the said wall has become highly unstable and requires to be removed before it collapses and causes any injury to any person in

¶9

¶10

the vicinity. Sri P. Gopi Krishna also took the plea that Sri M.Jagadeesh (respondent) had deliberately allowed the wall to fall into disrepair and had also kept his house vacant due to which debris has accumulated and the same could also cause injury. This petition is contested by Sri M.Jagadeesh.

¶11

Sri M.Jagadeesh, in turn filed a complaint before the Gram Panchayat alleging that Sri P.Gopi Krishna had encroached into the partition wall while undertaking construction of his house. The further allegation was that the construction of the house itself is illegal as no building permission was taken for the construction of the house. Sri M.Jagadeesh has approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.18424 of 2018 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of Sri M.Jagadeesh dated 01.09.2017 for demolition of the unauthorised construction made by Sri P.Gopi Krishna.

¶12

While these two writ petitions were pending, Sri P.Gopi Krishna approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.12137 of 2022 for a direction to the Gram Panchayat to remove the partition wall between the properties of these two persons as there was every danger of collapse of the said wall. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 02.05.2022 directing the 2^nd respondent Gram Panchayat to verify whether the wall is in danger of collapse and to take appropriate action of removing the said wall

¶13

¶14

if it was found to be in a dilapidated condition. The said exercise was to be undertaken after due notice and opportunity is given to Sri M.Jagadeesh.

¶15

The Gram Panchayat is said to have initiated action for demolition of the wall without further notice to Sri M.Jagadeesh, due to which Sri M.Jagadeesh has now approached this Court in W.P.No.23213 of 2022.

¶16

Both Sri T.Balaji and Smt. G.Padmavalli have made their respective submissions.

¶17

Sri T. Balaji, learned counsel would submit that the existence of the partition wall and the question of whether the said wall should be removed or not is a private dispute between M.Jagadeesh and P.Gopi Krishna and the same cannot be adjudicated by the Gram Panchayat. He would submit that there can be no direction to the Gram Panchayat to go into this issue. He would further submit that the Gram Panchayat instead of going into the primary question, whether the house constructed by Sri P.Gopi Krishna in D.No.2-21 is a legal construction after obtaining building permission, has not been considered and the Gram Panchayat has now initiated action to remove the partition wall without following the directions of this Court to ascertain whether the wall is in danger of collapse or not, after notice to Sri M.Jagadeesh.

¶18

¶19

The learned counsel would also submit that the Gram Panchayat would have to go into the question of encroachment of P.Gopi Krishna into the partition wall.

¶20

Smt. G.Padmavalli, learned counsel would submit that there was no encroachment on the part of her client and that Sri M.Jagadeesh has already removed half of the partition wall and constructed a cement and brick wall on his side of the partition wall due to which the partition wall on the side of the P.Gopi Krishna has become more unstable and requires to be removed. She would further submit that the entire wall has to be removed as the entire wall extending over 120 feet is unstable and dilapidated.

¶21

The above submissions throw up two disputes which have come up before this Court. The first dispute is whether the said house/building constructed by Sri P.Gopi Krishna has been constructed after obtaining necessary building permissions from the Gram Panchayat or any other competent authority. The second dispute is whether the partition wall separating the properties of P.Gopi Krishna and M.Jagadeesh is an unstable wall in danger of collapse requiring its removal or whether it does not require any interference.

¶22

Both these issues are issues which have to be determined by the Gram Panchayat.

¶23

¶24

In the circumstances, all the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

¶25

i) The Gram Panachayt shall verify whether the house/building constructed by Sri P.Gopi Krishna has been constructed after obtaining necessary permissions from either the Gram Panchayat or any other competent authority. In the absence of such permission, the Gram Panchayat would have to take appropriate action in accordance with law and after giving appropriate notice and opportunity to Sri P.Gopi Krishna;

¶26

ii) The Gram Panchayat would have to verify whether the partition wall existing between the properties of Sri P.Gopi Krishna and Sri M.Jagadeesh is unstable or is in danger of collapse. If it is found, on a physical inspection, that there is a danger of the wall collapsing, appropriate action is to be taken after giving an opportunity of hearing to Sri M.Jagadeesh to show that the wall is a safe structure which does not require any interference. It would also be open to Sri P.Gopi Krishna to make out a case contrary to the case of Sri M.Jagadeesh before the Gram Panchayat.

¶27

¶28

This Court is not going into any of the other issues and

¶29

it is left open to the parties to agitate their right before the competent forum. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶31

stand closed.

¶32

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶33

20.02.2023 RJS

¶34

¶35

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶36

WRIT PETITION Nos.2022, 18424 of 2018 & 23213 of 2022

¶37

20-02-2023

¶38

RJS

Pasuparthi Gopi Krishna, v. Prl.Secy., Panchayath Rural devel. dept.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pasuparthi Gopi Krishna, v. Prl.Secy., Panchayath Rural devel. dept.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dommeti Veeraju, Vs The State of Aandhra Pradesh

Nattimabu Gari Abdul Rawoof Vs the State of Ap

Gana Issacu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Dommeti Veeraju, Vs The State of Aandhra Pradesh

S Gopal Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Koppula Natha Neyulu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh