Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
T Kesaveni vs State Of Ap on 7 March, 2022
Author: R.Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R.Raghunandan Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.25682 of 2020
ORDER:-
The petitioner is said to be the owner of Ac.0.08 cents of land covered by patta No.3 in Sy.No.357/1-A of Kasavapuram, Tallerevu Mandal, East Godavari District. As the Gram Panchayat was trying to encroach on the land of the petitioner, W.P.No.2359 of 2015 is said to have been filed by the petitioner. Initially interim directions were granted. The petitioner contends that while interim direction were in force, the 6th respondent had set up a sweetmeat shop in the said land by erecting a structure.
2. Aggrieved by the said structure being erected, without any permission being obtained, the petitioner approached the 5th respondent for removal of the said structure as it amounts to an illegal construction. Despite the representations made to him, the 5th respondent did not take any steps to remove the said structure. Aggrieved by the said inaction, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
3. After notice, the 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In this counter affidavit, the contention of the petitioner, that the sweetmeat shop of the 6th respondent has been set up without any permission, is not denied. The 5th respondent has taken the position that the said sweetmeat shop is not obstructing any traffic and since it is not a permanent structure the said shop can be allowed to remain. 2
4. Notice issued to the 6th respondent was served on the 6th respondent in January-2021. However, there is no representation for the 6th respondent since then.
5. In the circumstances, after having heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 5th respondent the present writ petition is being disposed of.
6. It is an admitted case on both sides that the structure set up by the 6th respondent does not have any permission or license from the 5th respondent.
7. In such circumstances, the said structure would have to be treated as an illegal structure and would have to be removed. The refusal of the 5th respondent to remove the said structure on the ground that it is not causing obstruction to any persons cannot be accepted. Section 121 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, clearly requires that any construction of any structure in the Gram Panchayat area is permissible only after appropriate approval from the Gram Panchayat is obtained. In the absence of such an approval, the said structure would have to be treated as illegal and would have to be removed.
8. In view of this provision of law, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 5th respondent to take necessary steps against the structure set up by the 6th respondent and remove the same. However, it shall be open to the 5th respondent to issue a notice to the 6th respondent to show-cause why the said structure should not be removed and 3 any step taken by the 5th respondent shall be only after considering and passing orders on the objections of the 6th respondent. This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 07-03-2022 BSM 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.25682 of 2020 Date : 07-03-2022 BSM