IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.38484 OF 2015 DATED : 16.03.2026 Between:

C. Srinath Reddy, S/o. Late C.Narsimha Reddy and 2 others. …Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayatraj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 4 others.

… Respondents :: O R D E R ::

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-

“…to issue a writ or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 3^rd respondent - District Panchayat Officer, Mahaboobnagar in No.A9/869/2015 dated 06.11.2015 and his Memo No.A/869/2015 dated 09.11.2015 and consequential Notice of 4^th respondent dated 18.11.2015 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble High Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard Sri Viswanath, learned counsel representing Sri V. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on record; Sri Ashok Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3; Sri Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K.Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and Sri S.R.Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. Perused the record.

3. This Court, on 26.11.2015, while admitting the writ petition passed the following interim order in W.P.M.P.No.49546 of 2015.

“By the impugned proceedings, dated

06.11.2015, respondent No.3 has revoked the petitioners’ construction permission granted by the Panchayat Secretary, Mutpur Gram Panchayat.

Under Section 128(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), a Second Appeal shall lie from the decision of the Gram Panchayat passed in an appeal under Sub-Section (1) thereof to such authority as may be prescribed. Respondent No.3 is the authority competent to entertain such second appeals under the Rules made by the State Government.

In the instant case, some villagers appeared to have straight away filed a petitioner before respondent No.3 against the permission granted to the petitioners by the executive authority, which is the primary authority. No appeal to the Gram Panchayat as prescribed under clause (b) of Section 128(1) of the Act, much less Second Appeal as prescribed under Sub-Section (2) thereof is filed by them.

Therefore, this Court is prima facie of the opinion that respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition filed by the villagers and cancel the permission granted to the petitioners for construction of compound wall.

Hence, the impugned proceedings, dated

06.11.2015 and the consequential memo dated 09.11.2015 of respondent No.3 and the notice dated 18.11.2015 of respondent No.4 are suspended pending further orders.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that while granting the interim order, this Court has categorically opined that “respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition filed by the villagers and cancel the permission granted to the petitioners for construction of compound wall.” He further submits that under Section 128(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, a second appeal would lie against a decision of the Gram Panchayat passed in an appeal under Sub-section (1). Such an appeal must be filed before the prescribed authority. Under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Second Appeal) Rules, 2000, the District Panchayat Officer (Respondent No. 3) is the competent authority to entertain these appeals, He further submits that, in the instant case, no appeal was filed before the Gram Panchayat as prescribed under Section 128(1)(b) of the Act muchless a second appeal under Sub-section (2). Therefore, Respondent No.3 has not empowered to issue the impugned proc