ORDER : 1. In the writ petition i.e. W.P.No.33919 of 2024, the petitioner is seeking a declaration that the impugned notice No.GPA/2024, dated 27.11.2024, issued by the respondent No.6 for demolition of the petitioner’s house bearing No.11-76 at Akunur Village, Cheryala Mandal, Siddipet District, on 03.12.2024, as illegal and arbitrary and high handed and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition i.e., W.P.No.33919 of 2024 are that the petitioner purchased a house bearing No.11-76, admeasuring 275 sq.yards, situated at Akunur Village, Cheryala Mandal, Siddipet District, in the year 2011, from one Manchala Krishnamurthy, for a valuable consideration and subsequent thereto, the Government acquired an extent of 40 sq.yards from the said land in the year 2021 as part of road widening of Dhulimetta-Cheryala road and thereafter, till December-2023, the petitioner was residing in the said house along with his family. It is submitted that since the said house was ninety years old and since the Government had also taken away 40 sq.yards of land in 2021, the petitioner demolished the said house in December-2023 and planned for construction of a new house and therefore, the petitioner applied online on 06.03.2024 for house construction permission and the said application has also been acknowledged by the authorities. However, the same was shown as under process and since there was no further communication from the authorities, the petitioner has proceeded with construction. It is submitted that while the matter stood thus, the respondent No.6 had directed the petitioner to attend their office on 06.08.2024 and when the petitioner attended their office, he was handed over four old dated notices i.e., 05.04.2024, 10.05.2024, 27.06.2024 and 26.07.2024, but when the petitioner refused to accept the said notices, the respondent No.6 allegedly informed him that if he receives the notices and give reply to the same, he would ensure the grant of building permission. It is submitted that the petitioner thereafter made another online application for building permission and the documents were submitted in the office of the respondent No.6, but the respondent No.6 refused to receive the same and therefore, another application was also made for building permission. It is submitted that the petitioner thereafter made another online application for building permission and the documents were submitted in the office of the respondent No.6, but the respondent No.6 refused to receive the same and therefore, another application was also made for building permission. It is thereafter that the petitioner made a representation on 15.10.2024 to the respondent No.6 along with a copy endorsed to the District Collector and District Panchayat Officer respectively, for grant of building permission, but for reasons best known to them, the building permission was not granted to the petitioner and it is thereafter, that the respondent No.6 issued the impugned notice dated 27.11.2024 stating that basing on the complaint made by the neighbor of the petitioner, i.e., the respondent No.12 herein, on 11.09.2024, an inquiry was conducted by District Panchayat Officer, Cheryala and it was noticed that the house consisting of ground+two floors was constructed without leaving any setbacks and that the said construction was made without any permission from the competent authority and that the said house will be demolished on 03.12.2024 at 11.30 a.m. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by way of a lunch motion on 02.12.2024 and this Court had granted an interim direction not to take any action pursuant to the impugned notice dated 27.11.2024. Thereafter, the respondent No.12 has filed W.P.No.9353 of 2025 challenging the inaction on the part of the respondent No.5 in taking any action against the illegal construction raised by the respondent No.6 therein i.e., petitioner in W.P.No.33919 of 2024 in the guise of interim direction in I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2024 in W.P.No.33913 of 2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.9353 of 2025 has filed photographs at Page No.54 of the writ petition to demonstrate that due to the construction raised by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.33919 of 2024, the building of the petitioner has been damaged and it is alleged that the writ petitioner in W.P.No.33919 of 2024 is making illegal construction without leaving any setbacks. These two matters were clubbed together and in the meantime, the petitioner in W.P.No.33919 of 2024, also filed W.P.No.18634 of 2025 seeking a direction to the respondents to issue the ‘No Due Certificate’ (NOC) to enable him to complete his registration work. 4. The respondents in the respective writ petitions have filed their counter affidavits in support of their contentions. 5. 4. The respondents in the respective writ petitions have filed their counter affidavits in support of their contentions. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the predecessor in title i.e., the vendor of the petitioner in W.P.No.33919 of 2024 and the petitioner in W.P.No.9353 of 2025 are brothers and the petitioner has purchased the property from one of the siblings and admittedly, it is a ninety years old house and 40 sq.yards, out of 275 sq.yards of land has been taken away by the Government for road widening. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has submitted an application for building permission, but according to the respondents, the same has been reverted by the authorities on the ground that the original registration documents are not attached and the site plan is not as per the required measurements and that the neighbors have not signed in the notice. Further, it is noticed that though the petitioner has made an application for construction of ground+one floor only, he has made construction of ground+two floors i.e., a penthouse on the second floor. The case of the respondents is also that the petitioner has not left any setbacks as per the plan. The petitioner has, however, tried to demonstrate that when the petitioner was making construction, the common wall of the respondent No.12 was intact and due to the heavy rains subsequently, the common wall got damaged and that the damage to the wall was not due to the construction made by the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner has offered to repair the wall, but the respondents demanded heavy amounts and therefore, the petitioner could not oblige the same. 6. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat, however, submitted that the petitioner’s applications for building permission were reverted and the petitioner was required to take permission before construction. 7. He also submitted that the petitioner has offered to repair the wall, but the respondents demanded heavy amounts and therefore, the petitioner could not oblige the same. 6. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat, however, submitted that the petitioner’s applications for building permission were reverted and the petitioner was required to take permission before construction. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 in W.P.No.33919 of 2024, submitted that the petitioner’s name has been mutated in the records from 2012- 2013 and house tax has been paid by him regularly and the petitioner has made a building permission application online on 06.03.2024 vide application No.58 and the same was reverted by the then Panchayat Secretary for submissions of original registered documents and the petitioner without taking any permission from the concerned authority, has started construction of the building without leaving any setbacks which has caused damage to some part of the house belonging to respondent No.12, which is adjacent to the petitioner’s house i.e., collapse of the wall of respondent No.12 due to the construction of first and second floors by not leaving any setbacks. It is stated that the then Panchayat Secretary has issued notices dated 05.04.2024, 10.05.2024, 27.06.2024 and 26.07.2024 to stop the illegal and unauthorized construction being carried out by the petitioner and also that the respondent No.12 has made a representation to the MPDO stating that the petitioner herein is making illegal and unauthorized construction in his land. It is submitted that the MPDO has issued a memo vide No.GPA/MPO/2024, dated 05.08.2024 to the then Panchayat Secretary to take immediate action against the petitioner as per rules, but the then Panchayat Secretary did not act upon the same and therefore, DPO had issued a show cause notice vide No.1668/2024/A2-Pts, dated 10.09.2024 to the then Panchayat Secretary for being negligent on the above issue and other works of the village. It is submitted that on the instructions of DPO, the DLPO has issued a notice dated 25.09.2024 to then Panchayat Secretary to be present for the field verification of the subject land on 26.09.2024 along with DLPO and on the said date field verification was conducted and a report was submitted to the District Collector. It is submitted that on the instructions of DPO, the DLPO has issued a notice dated 25.09.2024 to then Panchayat Secretary to be present for the field verification of the subject land on 26.09.2024 along with DLPO and on the said date field verification was conducted and a report was submitted to the District Collector. It is submitted that the petitioner had applied for house building permission through online application No.69, dated 09.10.2024 and the then Panchayat Secretary has again reverted the same on the same day by stating that the original registered documents and site plans according to the proper measurements have to be submitted and that the District Collector had issued a show cause notice dated 14.10.2024 to the then Panchayat Secretary for not taking any action against the illegal and unauthorized construction carried out by the petitioner herein. It is submitted that the then Panchayat Secretary has also been suspended by the District Collector for not taking action against the illegal and unauthorized construction. It is stated that the Collector has issued a memo vide No.1668/2024/A6.P, dated 21.11.2024 to the incumbent Panchayat Secretary to take immediate and necessary action against the illegal and unauthorized construction of the petitioner on the basis of the report of the DLPO and action was directed to be taken under Section 114 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 and rules prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.67 and therefore, the impugned notice dated 27.11.2024 was issued to the petitioner informing that on 03.12.2024 action will be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 8. It is further submitted that in spite of issuance of several notices, the petitioner has not acted upon them and therefore, the impugned notice had been issued and action is yet to be taken. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent has also filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has started construction of multi stored building without any permission or sanction from the concerned authority and without leaving any setbacks, causing collapse of his house wall. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent has also filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has started construction of multi stored building without any permission or sanction from the concerned authority and without leaving any setbacks, causing collapse of his house wall. It is stated that the petitioner has started construction of G+2 floors in a small extent of land without leaving any setbacks and without taking any precautionary measures towards the house of the respondent No.12, due to which, the side wall of his tiled house collapsed on 10.09.2024 and therefore, the respondent No.12 had approached the MPO, DLPO for taking action and further submitted that a police complaint was also filed on 24.08.2024. The respondent No.12 in detail explained the steps taken by him to protect the wall of his house and requested to take action against the writ petitioner for illegal construction of G+2 floors without leaving any setbacks. Along with the counter affidavit, he also filed photographs of the building. 10. In response, the writ petitioner also filed a reply affidavit along with photographs and the Google Maps to demonstrate the existence of old dilapidated house and also that when the house was demolished, the wall of the respondent No.12 was intact. He has also filed photographs which are at page No.22, to demonstrate that the old wall was intact when the petitioner had raised the construction and submitted that the wall of respondent No.12 house being an old house collapsed due to subsequent rains and not due to construction made by the petitioner. 11. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the photographs are filed by the respondent No.12 and also that the photographs are filed by the petitioner along with reply affidavit. It is noticed therefrom that when the petitioner has constructed the G+2 floors, the combined wall of the respondent No.12 house was intact and it was only subsequent thereto, that the wall has collapsed. Therefore, the construction made by the petitioner cannot be said to be the reason for collapse of the wall of respondent No.12. However, the petitioner has made the construction without obtaining any permission and sanction and the application of the petitioner was reverted by the authorities within the prescribed time and therefore, it cannot be said that under deemed permission the construction was made. However, the petitioner has made the construction without obtaining any permission and sanction and the application of the petitioner was reverted by the authorities within the prescribed time and therefore, it cannot be said that under deemed permission the construction was made. The respondents are therefore directed to consider the application of the petitioner for issuance of ‘No Due Certificate’ to enable him to complete his registration work and after receipt of ‘No Due Certificate’, the petitioner may make a fresh application for building permission and the same shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law. The respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the property of the petitioner till such time. As regards the collapse of the wall of the old house of respondent No.12, the DLPO had given a report that the wall collapsed due to the construction activity carried out by the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore directed to bear 50% of the cost for repair of the wall. 12. Accordingly, the three writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed.