IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 10131 of 2008 Between: Sri B. Kishan Rao S/o. Ganapathi Rao R/o.Yesji Village, Manoor Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Panchayat Wing, Medak at Sanga Reddy. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Medak at Sanga Reddy. 3 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Medak at Sanga Reddy 4 The Panchayat Secretary, Narayankhed, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not renewing the permission granted vide proceedings 98/GPJ/2005 dt.1-10- 2005 as illegal, unjust arbitrary unconstitutional and violative of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. Mohan Vinod & Associates Counsel for Respondents: G.P. for Panchayat Raj & Rural Dev. The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, and at their request the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the action of the respondents in not renewing the permission granted earlier vide proceedings No.98/GPJ/2005, dated 01.10.2005 as arbitrary and illegal. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of a residential plot in S.No.22/1, admeasuring 151 sq. yds., situated at Narayankhed village, Medak District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 15.04.2005. After purchasing the said plot the petitioner has submitted an application for sanction of construction permission to the fourth respondent, who granted permission through his proceedings dated 01.10.2005. While so, one Mr.K. Narsimhulu encroached into the said plot. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.28 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narayankhed for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession, and the same was decreed in his favour on 31.08.2006. On decreeing the suit, the petitioner filed E.P.No.3 of 2006, and obtained delivery of the residential plot through Court Bailiff on 04.11.2006. It is his grievance that though immediately he applied for renewal of the permission on 26.12.2007 explaining the reasons for not completing the construction within the prescribed period, the fourth respondent is not renewing the same. Hence, he submitted a representation to the first and second respondents on 29.08.2007, but in vain. Hence, the present writ petition. The fourth respondent-the Panchayat Secretary, Narayankhed Medak District, filed counter affidavit. At paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit it is stated that under G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26.02.2002 rules were provided for granting permission for layouts and also for constructions. According to the Rules, before granting permission, the owner of the land should submit the title deed along with the application, and other documents like plan layout etc. In the absence of any documents or any valid objection, the permission cannot be granted, and hence the permission could not be renewed. At Paragraph 5 of the counter it is stated that after clearing the above hurdles, permission was granted by the Gram Panchayat on 12.06.2009 in proceedings No.98/GPN/2009. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit no further orders need be passed in this writ petition. Accordingly the Writ Petition is closed. No costs. ________________ (N.V.RAMANA, J.) 22nd June, 2007 Js.