K. Murali Krishna v. The District Panchayat Officer,
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY W.P. No. 24174 OF 2011 ORDER :
This writ petition is filed stating that the 4th respondent has made construction contrary to the plan approved by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings D.Dis.No.1-58/2010, dated 31.03.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has lodged complaint dated 16.06.2010 to the 3rd respondent with a request to take action against the unauthorized construction made by the 4th respondent and that the petitioner has also lodged similar complaint with the 2nd respondent.
2. After lodging of the complaint by the petitioner, the 4th respondent has gifted the house property in RS No.121/6 to his mother-in-law, who is the 5th respondent under registered document No.2629/2010, dated 20.07.2010. The petitioner has lodged similar complaint dated 08.06.2010 with the first respondent, who in turn issued letter L.Dis.No.1956/2010 PTS6, dated 28.08.2010 directing the 3rd respondent to take necessary action if construction made by the petitioner is against the approved plan. As the respondents 1 to 3 failed to take action against the 4th respondent, who being the President of Gram Panchayat, the petitioner filed representation before the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Employment, A.P, Hyderabad, who in turn issued a Memo L.Dis.No.13161/CPR & RE/D2/2010, dated 15.11.2010 directing the first respondent to get the matter enquired in respect of illegal construction made by the 4th respondent. In spite of the above complaints by the petitioner, no action has been taken. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, Smt. K.Mani Deepika, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent, Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent and Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for 5th
respondent.
4. As per the proceedings Rc.No.C2-1300/2011, dated 05.11.2011 produced by Smt. K.Mani Deepika, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent, the application for building permission made by 4th respondent is rejected by the 2nd respondent.
Since the representation filed by the petitioner is pending for taking action against the 4th respondent and a direction was also issued to the first respondent to enquire into the matter by the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj, instead of keeping the matter pending, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to take action on representation/complaints made by the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is stated by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that 4th respondent made an application for regularization of structures constructed by him but no particulars are given. If any application is pending same can also be disposed of as per law.
With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand dismissed. _________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 19.06.2015.
KVS HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
W.P.No.24174 of 2011
Date: 19-06-2015 KVS