Pamidi Bhaskara Rao v. The District Panchayat Officer

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No. 25431 OF 2012 ORDER:

This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the proceedings Rc.No.47/12, dated 12.05.2012, of the Panchayat Secretary, Karlapalem Gram Panchayat, Karlapalem Village and Mandal, Guntur District - 4th respondent.

Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri Ravi Chimalapati, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and perused the material available on record.

According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the site admeasuring 468.2 and 122.6 square yards out of Ac.3.01 cents bearing D.No.580/2 of Karlapalem Village and Mandal, Guntur District, having purchased the same under two different registered sale deeds vide document Nos.5934/2011, dated 07.10.2011 and 6372/2011, dated 31.10.2011, for valuable consideration. It is stated that he submitted application to the 3rd respondent/Gram Panchayat for approval of the plan and permission for construction of the building and the Gram Panchayat vide its resolution No.3, dated 05.01.2012 granted approval of the plan and eventually by proceedings Roc.No.5/2012, dated 24.01.2012, accorded permission for construction of commercial complex with ground, first and second floors.

Pursuant to the said approval and the permission, the petitioner claims to have started the work and completed the ground floor and raised the pillars for laying the slab on the first floor. At that point of time, the 4th respondent issued notice bearing Roc.No.45/2012, dated 24.04.

proceedings, dated 23.04.2012, informed that the permission for construction of building in Sy.No.580/2 of Karlapalem had been obtained without furnishing necessary permissions. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he started construction as per the approved plan and completed ground floor and making construction of first and second floors without any deviation, but the 4th respondent again issued another notice, dated 03.05.2012, directing him to stop the construction and to comply with the requirements mentioned in the said notice for which the petitioner submitted his explanation stating that the permission was granted after verifying the required requirements and that there would not be any necessity to comply the unreasonable requirements as mentioned in the notice, dated 03.05.2012.

It is further stated that notices were issued to harass him at the behest of local politicians and that the 4th respondent - Panchayat Secretary issued the proceedings under challenge, dated 12.05.2012, cancelling the permission granted stating that the then Secretary accorded permission due to lack of experience though the plan submitted by the petitioner did not contain any other permissions from other departments.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, that before resorting to the impugned action, the 4th respondent did not issue any show cause notice nor afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to defend his case and the reasons assigned by him in the impugned order of cancellation of permission cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is violative of the provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Gram Panchayat Layout Rules notified vide G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 26.02.2002.

In the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat Secretary, though he pleads that notices were issued prior to passing of the impugned order, the counter is absolutely silent as to issuance of show cause notice for cancellation. This, in the considered opinion of the Court, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is a settled and well established preposition of law that any action on the part of the authorities, which has civil consequences, should necessarily be preceded by notice and opportunity to the persons likely to be affected by such action. In the instant case, the same is conspicuously absent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the orders of this Court in WPMP.No.32420 of 2012 the petitioner proceeded with the construction and completed the same.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the proceedings, dated 12.05.2012, issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Karlapalem Gram Panchayat, Karlapalem Village and Mandal, Guntur District - 4th respondent. However, it is open for the respondents to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made supra, if they are advised to do so. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. _____________________ A.V. SESHA SAI, J Date: 01.12.