ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: “Declaring the impugned Memo ROC No. 1378/2011, dated 01.12.2011 of Respondent No. 2 and the consequential proceedings in ROC No. 330/2010, dated 17.12.2011 of respondent No. 4 as contrary to the provisions of G.O.Ms. No. 67, PR&RD (Pts.IV) Department dated 26.02.2002 and the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same.” 2. Heard Sri. Y. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and Municipal and Administration appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 6 and the learned Standing Counsel for Panchayat Raj appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Respondent No. 5 i.e. (Party-in-person). Perused the material available on record. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the land to an extent of Ac. 0.39 cents in R.S. No. 122-11 situated in Pamarru Village, where he wanted to construct a marriage function hall with cement sheets. He made an application on 07.10.2010 along with necessary particulars and plan to Respondent No. 4 for permission and approval of construction for marriage function hall by fulfilling all necessary legal formalities as required under G.O.Ms. No. 67, dated 26.02.2002. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 permitted the petitioner to go ahead with the construction since Panchayat Board passed resolution permitting the petitioner to construct the function hall. Following the same, he constructed the marriage function hall by 25.01.2011 as per the plan submitted and approved by the Gram Panchayat. On 25.01.2011 respondent No. 4 came to the petitioner and directed him not to construct anything further and took statement that he would not construct anything further. The construction of marriage function hall is a building within the meaning of G.O.Ms. No. 67, dated 26.02.2002 and it doesn't require any technical or prior permission of the Town and Country Planning Department. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said function hall has been completed before 25.01.2011 only and nothing is constructed subsequent to the undertaking forcibly taken by respondent No. 4 on 25.01.2011. No. 67, dated 26.02.2002 and it doesn't require any technical or prior permission of the Town and Country Planning Department. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said function hall has been completed before 25.01.2011 only and nothing is constructed subsequent to the undertaking forcibly taken by respondent No. 4 on 25.01.2011. Therefore, the impugned Memo ROC No. 1378/2011, dated 01.12.2011 of respondent No. 2 and the consequential Proceedings in ROC No. 330/2010 of Respondent No. 4 dated 17.12.2011 are illegal and arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner. 5. The 4th Respondent i.e. Gram Panchayat, filed Counter Affidavit contending that the petitioner made an application to the Gram Panchayat for granting permission for construction of AC Sheet Roof Sheds (Kalyanamandapam) in Sy. No. 122-11 on 04.10.2010 and the same was placed before the Committee of the Gram Panchayat for taking decision. The committee of the Gram Panchayat resolved vide resolution No. 197/2010, to forward the application submitted by the petitioner to the District Town and Country Planning, Machilipatnam (for short D.T.C.P.) for its approval, who is the competent authority. Thereafter, as D.T.C.P. informed on 05.01.2011 to this respondent that there are some shortfalls in the application submitted by the petitioner, and the same was intimated to the petitioner on 07.01.2011 for rectifying the shortfalls. Thereupon, the petitioner requested this respondent vide Letter dated 25.01.2011 that the information as sought for will be furnished after obtaining permission from the competent authorities. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 visited the construction spot, as per the oral instructions of the District Panchayat Officer, Machilipatnam and submitted a detailed report on 21.10.2011 to the District Panchayat Officer, stating that the petitioner is constructing Kalyanamandapam without obtaining any permission. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 issued notice to the Petitioner on 27.10.2011 calling upon his explanation within one week. But, the petitioner, without submitting his explanation, proceeded with the construction. As such, respondent No. 4 issued Notice to the petitioner once again on 17.12.2011 to stop the construction. Without submitting his explanation to the show cause notice, the petitioner proceeded with the construction. As such, the respondent No. 4 issued the impugned Proceedings dated 17.12.2011. He further contended that according to G.O.Ms. No. 67, dated 26.02.2002 for construction of Kalyanamandapam, the District Town and Country Planning permission is necessary. Without submitting his explanation to the show cause notice, the petitioner proceeded with the construction. As such, the respondent No. 4 issued the impugned Proceedings dated 17.12.2011. He further contended that according to G.O.Ms. No. 67, dated 26.02.2002 for construction of Kalyanamandapam, the District Town and Country Planning permission is necessary. Therefore, the said Kalyanamandapam is constructed without permission from the competent authorities. As such, there are no merits in the Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition has to be dismissed. 6. The 5th Respondent i.e. Unofficial Respondent, filed Counter Affidavit contending that the Writ Petitioner is guilty of not only starting but completing the construction of Kalyanamandapam without obtaining prior technical approval from the District Town and Country Planning Officer as required under A.P. Gram panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002, (hereinafter called as Rules, 2002), which is mandatory for commencing the construction. 7. With regard to locus, Respondent No. 5 contends that he made several complaints before the respondents about the illegal and unauthorized construction made by the petitioner. Since there was no action taken by the respondents, he made complaints before the Hon'ble Lokayukta, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad bearing Complaint Nos. 426/11/B2, dated 09.03.2011, 1550/11/B2, dated 09.09.2011 and 2641/11/B1, dated 11.11.2011 with regard to illegal and unauthorized construction of Kalyanamandapam by the petitioner without obtaining prior technical approval from the District Town and Country and Planning Officer. On the direction of Hon'ble Upalokayuktha, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad only, respondent Nos. 2 and 4 issued the impugned Notice dated 17.12.2011, directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized structure i.e. Kalyanamandapam, within 7 days. As such, he contends that he is proper and necessary party to this Writ Petition. 8. He further contends that as per the report submitted by the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Pamarru, before the Lokayuktha, on 27.01.2012 it is stated that at the time of passing of resolution No. 197 dated 08.10.2010, the Member of Ward No. 4 opposed the passing of Resolution on the ground that the document bearing No. 713/2007, dated 30.03.2007 in respect of the land on which the Kalyanamandapam was proposed to be constructed has been declared as null and void. Therefore, passing of resolution on the property purchased under attachment and being null and void document is contrary to law. Respondent No. 5 contended that in spite of his several complaints made to respondent Nos. Therefore, passing of resolution on the property purchased under attachment and being null and void document is contrary to law. Respondent No. 5 contended that in spite of his several complaints made to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on several occasions, the respondents failed to take any action against the petitioner to prevent the illegal and unauthorized construction of the said Kalyanamandapam. 9. The Respondent No. 5 further contended that the petitioner has to comply with the requirements of the shortfalls pointed out by the District Town and Country Planning Officer, Machilipatnam. The contention of the petitioner is that he has fulfilled all legal formalities as required under the said Rules is not only baseless, fraud and fraudulent, but, the said false allegation is misrepresentation of facts and misleading. The petitioner has no right or authority to start construction of the Kalyanamandapam without obtaining the prior technical approval of the District Town and Country Planning Officer as required under Rule 11 of the A.P. Grama Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 and as such, the contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 having intimated the petitioner to go ahead with the construction in view of passing of resolution by the Panchayat Board is not correct. Therefore, such an illegal and unauthorized construction is certainly liable to be demolished. Further, if the petitioner proceeded with the construction even after such a intimation given by respondent No. 4 in the face of the shortfalls pointed out by the District Town and Country Planning Officer as per his Letter ROC No. 382/2010-K, dated 05.01.2011, it exhibits collusion between the petitioner and Respondent No. 4. He denies that whatever structure is existing on the land in R.S. No. 122/11 was completed by 25.1.2011. Therefore, the action initiated by respondent No. 2 through Memo bearing ROC No. 1378/2011, dated 01.12.2011 and the consequent Notice dated 17.12.2011 issued by Respondent No. 4 are wholly justified and being wholly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and the same does not call for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Writ Petition is wholly misconceived and there are no merits in the Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition has to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 10. Therefore, the Writ Petition is wholly misconceived and there are no merits in the Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition has to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 10. The 6th Respondent i.e. the Director of Town and City Planning Officer, filed Counter Affidavit contending that the Gram Panchayat is competent to grant building permissions for all residential buildings of irrespective area of not more than 9.00 Mts height. Therefore, all such proposals beyond these limits i.e. Non Residential Buildings shall have to be referred to the District Town and Country Planning Officer for necessary approvals. The proposal of constructing a marriage function hall in an extent of Ac. 0.39 cents at Sy. No. 122/11 of Pamarru Village was referred to the District Town and Country Planning Officer, Krishna, Machilipatnam and the same was scrutinized and returned to the Panchayat Secretary informing shortfalls vide Letter ROC No. 382/2010-K, dated 05.01.2011. The Panchayat Secretary, while informing the applicant about the shortfalls pointed out by the District Town and Country Planning Officer, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, vide Letter dated 07.01.2011, directed to stop the construction. Thereafter, no further intimation was received either from the applicant or from the Panchayat Secretary on resubmission of the plans. He contends that the petitioner high handedly proceeded with the construction without approval from the concerned Authorities as the petitioner is supposed to commence the construction only after obtaining valid approved building permission. 11. It is further contended that the contention of the petitioner that the marriage function hall is only a “building” within the meaning of G.O.Ms. No. 67, dated 26.02.2002 and for the construction of a “building” no technical or prior permission is required as per the said Government Order is not correct. The Petitioner's application for grant of permission was received through the Gram Panchayat, but the same was returned on the ground that the petitioner failed to fulfill required formalities, which was intimated to the petitioner through the Letter in ROC No. 382/2010-K, dated 05.01.2011 by the Panchayat Secretary. Till today, the petitioner is not complied the requirements. Once the petitioner fails to obtain the proper permission from the competent authority, it is for the executing authority to proceed further as per the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act. Till today, the petitioner is not complied the requirements. Once the petitioner fails to obtain the proper permission from the competent authority, it is for the executing authority to proceed further as per the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act. The action of respondent No. 6 in returning the application submitted by the petitioner is perfectly legal and as per the procedure contemplated under the Rules, 2002. The contention of the petitioner that Panchayat Board passed resolution permitting the approval of the plan is not correct. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and as such, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed Reply Affidavit contending that the presence of respondent No. 5 in this Writ Petition is not at all necessary for adjudication since he is neither necessary nor proper party. The role of proposed respondent No. 5 came to an end when the official respondents initiated the action. Therefore, the proposed respondent No. 5 should not be permitted to come on record and the implead petition filed by him is liable to be dismissed. 13. The contention of the petitioner is that Rule 11(i) (9) AA (iii) of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002, has no application to the issue involved in the present Writ Petition and hence, the procedure stated thereunder need not be fulfilled. The land, where the petitioner constructed Kalyanamandapam has been purchased by the petitioner from the father of the proposed respondent as per registered sale deed dated 30.03.2007 and the said registered document/sale deed has not been declared null and void by any competent authority or competent Civil Court. The Town and Country Planning Officer, Machilipatnam, is not empowered by the law or rules in the matter of construction of Kalyanamandapam and the alleged legal requirements/shortfalls need not be complied with. The alleged photographs, which were filed by the respondent No. 5, are managed mechanically and manipulated and reliance cannot be placed on such photos. The impugned Notice issued by respondent No. 4 is not legal. Therefore, there are merits in the Writ Petition to allow. As such, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed. 14. This Court gave anxious consideration to the rival contentions advanced by all the respondents and examined entire material on record. 15. The impugned Notice issued by respondent No. 4 is not legal. Therefore, there are merits in the Writ Petition to allow. As such, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed. 14. This Court gave anxious consideration to the rival contentions advanced by all the respondents and examined entire material on record. 15. After considering the contention of Respondent No. 5, this Court was pleased to implead him as Respondent No. 5 by Order dated 18.07.2013 in WPMP No. 7821 of 2012 holding that since the applicant is admittedly the neighbour of the Writ Petitioner, the alleged illegal construction raised him would be likely to affect his interest. In view of the finding of the Court in Order dated 18.07.2013 in WPMP 7821 of 2012, we hold that the respondent No. 5 is proper and necessary party to this Writ Petition. 16. Now the main point to be considered is whether the petitioner has to obtain approval from respondent No. 6 as required under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002, which was issued vide G.O.Ms. No. 67, PR&RD (Pts.IV) Department dated 26.02.2002 or not? 17. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 contends that necessary approval is required under the Rules, 2002, for construction of Kalyanamandapam by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Gram Panchayat forwarded the application of the petitioner to respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 6 informed the petitioner through the Gram Panchayat to rectify the shortfalls noted in the application submitted by him, but without complying the shortfalls and obtaining approval from Respondent No. 6, the petitioner commenced the construction and completed the Kalyanamandam. 18. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the marriage function hall is only a building within the meaning of G.O.Ms. No. 67, dated 26.02.2002, and for construction of a building, no technical/prior permission is required as per the said G.O. His further contention is that the construction of marriage function hall is perfectly in accordance with the plan approved by the gram panchayat at its meeting held on 08.10.2010 and also strictly in accordance with the provisions of G.O.Ms. No. 67, dated 26.02.2002. 19. For better adjudication of the issue, it is appropriate to extract the Rule 31 of Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002, herein under: 31. No. 67, dated 26.02.2002. 19. For better adjudication of the issue, it is appropriate to extract the Rule 31 of Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002, herein under: 31. Prior Technical Approval from District Town and Country Planning Officer is necessary for certain permissions: (1) The Executive Authority shall forward within a week, with specific remarks and obtain the prior technical approval from the District Town and Country Planning Officer before sanctioning and releasing the plans in the following cases of applications for permission: (a) All building permissions for Complexes. (b) All building permissions for heights more than 3 floors or 9 meters. (c) All cases of Cinema Theaters/Petrol Pump or Stations/Storage of L.P. Gas godowns, etc. The District Town and Country Planning Officer shall send its technical approval or rejection within 15 days of the receipt of the case to the Executive Authority concerned. The Executive Authority shall maintain registers of all layouts, building permissions, fees and charges collected in prescribed manner. (2) For all constructions and reconstructions, additions and alterations of Tobacco barns a license from Tobacco Board is required. As per the clear language used in the above Rule, the Executive Authority of the Gram Panchayat shall forward within a week with specific remarks and obtain prior technical approval from the District Town and Country Planning Officer before sanctioning and releasing the plans in the cases of application for permissions for all building permissions for complexes; all building permissions for heights more than 3 floors or 9 meters and all the cases of Cinema Theaters/Petrol Pump or Stations/Storage of L.P. Gas Godowns etc. 20. It is an admitted fact that in the present case, the petitioner made an application on 07.10.2010 along with plan to the Gram Panchayat i.e. Respondent No. 4, for permission and approval of construction for marriage function hall. In the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner along with this Writ Petition, it is his contention that he fulfilled all necessary legal formalities very scrupulously as required under G.O.Ms. No. 67, dated 26.02.2002. Here, it is to be noted that the said Government Order is nothing but the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002. As per the contention of respondent No. 4 Gram panchayat, the application dated 04.10.2010 submitted by the petitioner was placed before the Committee of the Gram Panchayat. No. 67, dated 26.02.2002. Here, it is to be noted that the said Government Order is nothing but the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002. As per the contention of respondent No. 4 Gram panchayat, the application dated 04.10.2010 submitted by the petitioner was placed before the Committee of the Gram Panchayat. The Committee of the Gram Panchayat resolved vide Resolution Letter No. 197/2020 to forward the application of the petitioner to the District Town and Country Planning Officer, Krishna, Machilipatnam, who is respondent No. 6 and who is the competent authority, for its approval. It is also an admitted fact that respondent No. 6 scrutinized the application of the petitioner and returned it to the Panchayat Secretary informing shortfalls vide Letter in ROC No. 382/2010-K, dated 05.01.2011. The Panchayat Secretary vide Letter dated 07.01.2011, informed the petitioner about the shortfalls pointed out by respondent No. 6 and directed to stop the construction. 21. Basing on the material available on record, it appears that thereafter Respondent No. 6 did not receive the application of the petitioner, after complying the shortfalls pointed out by respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 6 in his Counter Affidavit specifically contended that the petitioner is supposed to commence the construction only after obtaining valid approved building permission, but, in spite of receiving the communication that the plan proposals were returned and unapproved for fulfilling certain shortfalls, the petitioner high handedly, proceeded with the construction without any approval and thereby, he committed deliberate violation of the Rules, 2002. 22. The District Panchayat Officer, who is respondent No. 2, stated in his Counter Affidavit that the application of the petitioner for construction of Kalyanamandapam was placed before the Gram Panchayat on 08.10.2010. While placing the same before the Gram Panchayat, the Panchayat Secretary has submitted a Note stating that the District Town and Country Planning Officer has to approve the plan. The Gram Panchayat has approved the same vide Resolution No. 197, dated 08.10.2020 to forward the application of the petitioner to the District Town and Country Planning Officer. As such, it is clear that the Gram Panchayat has not issued any approved plan to the petitioner. The Panchayat Secretary has submitted the said proposal to the District Town and Country Planning Officer, Krishna, for plan approval. As such, it is clear that the Gram Panchayat has not issued any approved plan to the petitioner. The Panchayat Secretary has submitted the said proposal to the District Town and Country Planning Officer, Krishna, for plan approval. Without waiting for the orders of the District Town and Country Planning Officer, the Petitioner started construction. 23. It is further to be noted that the Gram Panchayat issued Notice in ROC No. 330/2010, dated 19.10.2010, informing the petitioner that the application dated 04.10.2010 of the petitioner is forwarded to Respondent No. 6 and not to commence the construction of Kalyanamandapam till receipt of the Orders. It is further informed that if he commences the construction without any approval/permission, action will be initiated under the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and G.O.Ms. No. 67, Panchayat Raj, Rural Development (Panchayats-IV), dated 26.02.2002. It appears, without caring these instructions, the petitioner commenced the construction contrary to the rules. 24. The petitioner filed a copy of the intimation furnished to the Gram Panchayat dated 02.12.2010, which was filed as Additional Material paper in W.P.M.P. No. 27075 of 2013, which discloses that on 02.12.2010, he intimated to the Gram Panchayat stating that he is proceeding with the construction as per the application and plan submitted on 04.10.2010. Though the Gram Panchayat aware of the fact that the petitioner's application and plan was sent to the District Town and Country Planning Officer for approval as required under Rules, 2002, kept quiet without stopping the petitioner proceeding with the construction. 25. It is also stated in the Counter Affidavit of the District Panchayat Officer that in response to the proposal submitted by respondent No. 4, the District Town and Country Planning Officer has inspected the spot on 03.01.2011 and observed certain shortfalls and the same were intimated to the Gram Panchayat. The Panchayat Secretary informed to the petitioner about the shortfalls pointed out by Respondent No. 6, but the petitioner has not cared the same and as per the directions of Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 3/the Divisional Panchayat Officer, has visited the spot on 25.01.2011. At the time of field visit, the petitioner has given a statement stating that he will not proceed further until necessary permissions are received from the concerned authorities. As such, it is crystal clear that the construction was not completed by 25.01.2011 as contended by the petitioner. 26. At the time of field visit, the petitioner has given a statement stating that he will not proceed further until necessary permissions are received from the concerned authorities. As such, it is crystal clear that the construction was not completed by 25.01.2011 as contended by the petitioner. 26. It is further to be noted that after receipt of the Notice dated 07.01.2011 issued by the Gram Panchayat to the petitioner in pursuance to the Letter dated 05.01.2011 of Respondent No. 6, the petitioner has submitted a Letter dated 25.01.2011 to the Gram Panchayat stating that to comply the shortfalls noted by Respondent No. 6 as mentioned in the Notice dated 07.01.2011 of the Gram Panchayat, he made application to the concerned authorities and after receipt of the same, he will submit the same to comply the shortfalls noted by Respondent No. 6. In the said Letter, he also stated that he stopped the construction of Kalyanamandapam as per the Direction of Divisional Panchayat Officer, Gudivada, the Extension Officer, (PR&RD) Department, Pamarru and the Panchayat Secretary, on the date of physical inspection conducted on 25.01.2011 and he undertook that he will proceed with the construction of Kalyanamandapam only after receipt of the approval from the Director of Town and Country Planning. On careful perusal of the contents of the Letter dated 25.01.2011 of the petitioner submitted to the Gram Panchayat, it is clear that (i) he did not comply the shortfalls noted by Respondent No. 6 as on 25.01.2011; (ii) he is proceeding with the construction till 25.01.2011 without any approval/permission from the competent authority and (iii) he stopped the construction on 25.01.2011 as per his undertaking given in that Letter. 27. It is to be noted from the report submitted by the District Panchayat Officer on 18.01.2012 to the Hon'ble Lokayuktha, Andhra Pradesh, it is stated that on 25.07.2011, the Gram Panchayat informed that Kalyanamandapam is in incomplete stage and no water and power connections were given. Later, the in-charge Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat through Letter dated 21.10.2011 has reported that the construction was taken up and it was completed and the owner of the site has not furnished any information as required by the Town and Country Planning authorities. It is also reported by the in-charge Panchayat Secretary that the then Panchayat Secretary has not taken any action in this regard. It is also reported by the in-charge Panchayat Secretary that the then Panchayat Secretary has not taken any action in this regard. It is further stated by the District Panchayat Officer in his report dated 18.01.2012 that neither the Panchayat Secretary nor others have brought the matter to his notice. He was of the opinion that the said construction was stopped as per the assurance given by the site owner. After coming to his notice of completion of the said construction, he immediately turned up by way of calling explanation to the then Panchayat Secretary, who is working at the time of construction on 01.11.2011, directing him to submit his explanation within 10 days, failing which, the matter, will be reported to the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj for initiating action, since the Commissioner of the Panchayat Raj is the disciplinary authority in respect of Executive Officers (Panchayat Secretaries) as per G.O.Ms. No. 98, PR&RD Department, dated 26.04.2006, besides issuing instructions to the present Panchayat Secretary to take immediate action on the said unauthorized construction as per Rule 33 (1) of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 67, RP&RD, dated 26.02.2002 i.e. for demolition of unauthorized construction. 28. It is pertinent to mention here that the District Panchayat Officer, Krishna, vide ROC No. 475/2011, dated 21.04.2011 issued proceedings cancelling the license of Sri. K.B. Venkateswara Rao, licensed Surveyor-I, Pammaru, for violation of the Government Orders in preparing the plan for construction of Kalyanamandapam in Sy. No. 122/11, Pammaru Gram Panchayat. 29. In the light of Rule 31 of 2002 Rules, in our considered view, the petitioner has to obtain approval from respondent No. 6. As per the averments made in the Counter Affidavits filed by the Official respondents and on careful examination of the documents filed by the respondents along with their Counter Affidavits and the material papers, this Court satisfied that the Gram Panchayat forwarded the application of the petitioner to Respondent No. 6 for approval as required under Rule 31 of Rules 2002 and Respondent No. 6 noted shortfalls and the same were informed to the petitioner and without complying the shortfalls, the petitioner commenced and completed the construction against the Rules, 2002. 30. 30. It is very strange to note that the Certificate dated 16.02.2022 issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Pammaru, which is filed along with implead petition filed by Respondent No. 5 in W.P.M.P. No. 7821 of 2021, proves that the petitioner did not make any payment of fees towards the construction of Kalyanamandapam to the Gram Panchayat. 31. It is also of the opinion of this Court that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 failed to take appropriate prompt action to prevent the petitioner from proceeding with the construction. The facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicates that at the instance of the then Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner completed his construction illegally. On careful examination of the facts mentioned above out of the material available on record, this Court satisfied that the petitioner without having any permission/approval of respondent No. 6 constructed the Kalyanamandapam at the instance of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as they did not made any attempt to stop the construction of the petitioner though he intimated them stating that he is commencing the construction as per the Letter dated 02.12.2013. We have no hesitation to state that unless Hon'ble Lokayuktha, Andhra Pradesh, called report from respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on the complaint of the respondent No. 5, the impugned Notice/Proceedings would not be issued by them. 32. At this stage, it is appropriate to extract the observations herein-under made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shanti Sports Club vs. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 705 which are applicable to the present case: Before concluding, we consider it necessary to enter a caveat. In all developed countries, great emphasis has been laid on the planned development of cities and urban areas. The object of planned development has been achieved by rigorous enforcement of master plans prepared after careful study of complex issues, scientific research and rationalization of laws. The people of those countries have greatly contributed to the concept of planned development of cities by strictly adhering to the planning laws, the master plan etc. They respect the laws enacted by the legislature for regulating planned development of the cities and seldom there is a complaint of violation of master plan etc. in the construction of buildings, residential, institutional or commercial. In contrast, scenario in the developing countries like ours is substantially different. They respect the laws enacted by the legislature for regulating planned development of the cities and seldom there is a complaint of violation of master plan etc. in the construction of buildings, residential, institutional or commercial. In contrast, scenario in the developing countries like ours is substantially different. Though, the competent legislatures have, from time to time, enacted laws for ensuring planned development of the cities and urban areas, enforcement thereof has been extremely poor and the people have violated the master plans, zoning plans and building regulations and bye-laws with impunity. In last four decades, almost all cities, big or small, have seen unplanned growth. In the 21st century, the menace of illegal and unauthorized constructions and encroachments has acquired monstrous proportions and everyone has been paying heavy price for the same. Economically affluent people and those having support of the political and executive apparatus of the State have constructed buildings, commercial complexes, multiplexes, malls etc. in blatant violation of the municipal and town planning laws, master plans, zonal development plans and even the sanctioned building plans. In most of the cases of illegal or unauthorized constructions, the officers of the municipal and other regulatory bodies turn blind eye either due to the influence of higher functionaries of the State or other extraneous reasons. Those who construct buildings in violation of the relevant statutory provisions, master plan etc. and those who directly or indirectly abet such violations are totally unmindful of the grave consequences of their actions and/or omissions on the present as well as future generations of the country which will be forced to live in unplanned cities and urban areas. The people belonging to this class do not realize that the constructions made in violation of the relevant laws, master plan or zonal development plan or sanctioned building plan or the building is used for a purpose other than the one specified in the relevant statute or the master plan etc. such constructions put unbearable burden on the public facilities/amenities like water, electricity, sewerage etc. apart from creating chaos on the roads. The pollution caused due to traffic congestion affects the health of the road users. The pedestrians and people belonging to weaker sections of the society, who cannot afford the luxury of air-conditioned cars, are the worst victims of pollution. such constructions put unbearable burden on the public facilities/amenities like water, electricity, sewerage etc. apart from creating chaos on the roads. The pollution caused due to traffic congestion affects the health of the road users. The pedestrians and people belonging to weaker sections of the society, who cannot afford the luxury of air-conditioned cars, are the worst victims of pollution. They suffer from skin diseases of different types, asthma, allergies and even more dreaded diseases like cancer. It can only be a matter of imagination how much the government has to spend on the treatment of such persons and also for controlling pollution and adverse impact on the environment due to traffic congestion on the roads and chaotic conditions created due to illegal and unauthorized constructions. This Court has, from time to time, taken cognizance of buildings constructed in violation of municipal and other laws and emphasized that no compromise should be made with the town planning scheme and no relief should be given to the violator of the town planning scheme etc. on the ground that he has spent substantial amount on construction of the buildings etc. K. Ramdas Shenoy vs. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi, 1974 (2) SCC 506 , Dr. G.N. Khajuria vs. Delhi Development Authority, 1995 (5) SCC 762 , M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu, 1999 (6) SCC 464 , Friends Colony Development Committee vs. State of Orissa, 2004 (8) SCC 733 , M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, 2006 (3) SCC 399 and S.N. Chandrasekhar vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 (3) SCC 208 . Unfortunately, despite repeated judgments by this Court and High Courts, the builders and other affluent people engaged in the construction activities, who have, over the years shown scant respect for regulatory mechanism envisaged in the municipal and other similar laws, as also the master plans, zonal development plans, sanctioned plans etc. have received encouragement and support from the State apparatus. As and when the courts have passed orders or the officers of local and other bodies have taken action for ensuring rigorous compliance of laws relating to planned development of the cities and urban areas and issued directions for demolition of the illegal/unauthorized constructions, those in power have come forward to protect the wrong doers either by issuing administrative orders or enacting laws for regularization of illegal and unauthorized constructions in the name of compassion and hardship. Such actions have done irreparable harm to the concept of planned development of the cities and urban areas. It is high time that the executive and political apparatus of the State take serious view of the menace of illegal and unauthorized constructions and stop their support to the lobbies of affluent class of builders and others, else even the rural areas of the country will soon witness similar chaotic conditions. 33. As the petitioner made construction without any approval/permission from Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and 6, this Court has no option except to hold that the construction of Kalyanamandapam made by the petitioner is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002. 34. For the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the impugned Memo in ROC No. 1378/2011, dated 01.12.2011 issued by Respondent No. 2 and the consequential Proceedings in ROC No. 330/2010, dated 17.12.2011 issued by Respondent No. 4 are in accordance with law and in conformity with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 and the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 35. In our considered view, the petitioner failed to make out any case on facts or law warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 36. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. 37. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, this Court noticed that this is a clear case of violation of the Rules to undertake the construction of Kalyanamandapam by the Petitioner. Due to failure of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in discharging their duties, the petitioner made construction illegally, unauthorizedly and without obtaining necessary approval/permission under relevant Rules. This Court cannot stand as a mute spectator for the illegal actions of the persons like the petitioner and the official Respondents. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we issue the following directions: (1) The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to take steps to demolish the illegal construction undertaken by the petitioner in the land to an extent of 39 cents in R.S. No. 122-11 situated in Pamarru, Krishna District, within a period of Four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 1 to 4 to take steps to demolish the illegal construction undertaken by the petitioner in the land to an extent of 39 cents in R.S. No. 122-11 situated in Pamarru, Krishna District, within a period of Four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. (2) The cost of demolition and all incidental expenses shall be borne by the Writ Petitioner. (3) The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 shall ensure that the work of demolition is carried out in a safe manner without affecting the neighbouring buildings/houses/structures. 38. There is no order as to costs. 39. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.