( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 12-8-1998 in WP No. 27262 of 1996. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the writ petition. In the writ petition, the appellant assailed the validity of the order dated 9-7-1996 of the District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad, the 1st respondent herein and also the notice dated 7-9-1996 issued by the Executive Officer, Madmidipalli Gram Panchayat, Armoor Taluk, the 3rd respondent herein.

( 2 ) THE background facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly and they are as follows: The appellant is the owner of the land comprised in Sy. Nos. 78 and 79 of Mamidipalli village of Armoor Taluk having purchased the same by a registered sale dced dated 4-12-1992 from the previous owners. After purchase of the land, the appellant sought permission from the Gram Panchayat, Mamidipalli, the 2nd respondent herein, for construction of mulgies. The 2nd respondent, by its resolution dated 20-9-1993, accorded permission. Subsequently, the Gram Panchayat, by another resolution dated 20-9-1994, renewed the same. At that stage, one Mr. G. Ganga Reddy, the 4th respondent herein, preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent against the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat dated 20-9-1993 and 20-9-1994 under Section 128 of the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, the Act ). The 1st respondent allowed the appeal and set aside the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat by order dated 19-7-1995. The appellant herein, aggrieved by the said order of the 1st respondent, preferred WP No. 25387 of 1997 before this Court, and this Court allowed that writ petition and set aside the order of the 1st respondent dated 19-7-1995, by order dated 22-4-1996 on the ground that the 1st respondent passed the order setting aside the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat without notice to the appellant herein. After the above order of this Court the 1st respondent, after notice to the appellant, again set aside the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat by order dated 9-7-1996. The appellant, being aggrieved by that order, preferred the present writ petition.

( 3 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge, on behalf of the appellant-petitioner, among other contentions, it was contended that the appeal preferred by the 4th respondent to the 1st respondent under Section 128 of the Act was ex facie incompetent and, therefore, the 1st respondent ought not to have entertained the appeal. In support of this contention, the appellant placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in WA No. 947 of 1995. The learned single Judge, dealing with the above contention, was pleased to observe-"but the issue was raised at the stage of second round of litigation and admittedly there is justification in the dispute raised by the 4th respondent as the space meant for public utility is being now converted into mulgies contrary to the building bye-laws. Hence without going into the merits of the contention, I am of the opinion that the matter may be enquired afresh by the Collector personally and decide whether the action of the Gram Panchayat in giving approval to the revised lay out by collecting compounding fee of Rs. 50,000. 00is beneficial to the Gram Panchayat duly keeping in mind the opinion of the residents of the locality and take further action in the matter i. e. , either permitting the petitioner to go ahead with the construction or to cancel the lay out sanctioned by the Gram Panchayat earlier. "so opining, the learned single Judge, by the order under appeal, set aside the order of the 1st respondent and directed the District Collector to dispose of the appeal afresh after giving opportunity to all concerned.

( 4 ) IT should be noticed at the threshold that the order of the learned single Judge remanding appeal to the District Collector for fresh disposal cannot be sustained for the obvious reason that the District Collector is not an appellate aut