THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23283 of 2010 Dated 01st February, 2011 Between: Chatla Ravi Kumar …Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.Kumar Babu Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.6: Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.7 & 8: Sri C.R.Sridharan The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, who claims to be the resident of Door No.9-1- 173-4A of Kunavaram Road, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, filed the present writ petition questioning the purported inaction of the official respondents in preventing respondent Nos.7 and 8 from proceeding with construction over lands admeasuring Acs.7.85 cents, Ac.0.27 cents and Ac.1.03 cents in Survey Nos.134/2, 135/2 and 139/1 respectively of Kunavaram Road, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.6 and Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 and 8. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that respondent Nos.7 and 8 have been constructing certain quarters over the above-mentioned lands, without obtaining permission from respondent No.6. The petitioner further pleaded that on account of such illegal and unauthorised construction, the drain water is coming out and polluting the drinking water, causing epidemic diseases in the his locality. In response to the notice issued by this Court, respondent No.6 and respondent Nos.7 and 8 filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.6, it is inter alia stated that erstwhile Bhadrachalam Municipality has granted permission on 01.07.2007 for construction of quarters by respondent Nos.7 and 8 in Survey No.134/2, that as the construction could not be completed within the prescribed time, respondent Nos.7 and 8 made an application for fresh permission before respondent No.6 and that accordingly, by proceedings in Rc.No.GPP1/31/2010, dated 28.08.2010, respondent No.6 has granted permission for construction of quarters. Similar is the stand taken by respondent Nos.7 and 8. In support of their plea that they obtained permission, respondent Nos.7 and 8 filed proceedings in Rc.No.GPP/1/31/2010, dated 28.08.2010, issued by respondent No.6, whereby it has granted permission for construction of quarters. Having carefully perused the record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the plea of the petitioner that respondent Nos.7 and 8 have been constructing quarters without permission from respondent No.6 cannot be accepted. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.29719 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st February, 2011 VGB