HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.24368 of 2010 Date : 18-1-2011 Between : Nalla Prabhakar and others .. Petitioners and The Gram Panchayath, Mothkur village, represented by its Secretary, Nalgonda District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners: Sri A.Rajashekar Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 : None appeared The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in taking action on the petitioners’ representations dated 13-8-2010, 12-9-2010 and 13-8-2009 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to remove the structures raised by respondent No.1 (sic: respondent No.4) from Shikam Tank Bed land of Peddacheruvu of Mothukur village, Nalgonda District. I have heard Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos.1 and 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that though respondent No.4 is raising construction on the Shikam land leading to blocking of sluices of Peddacheruvu, respondents Nos.2 and 3 have not been taking any action despite the petitioners’ representations made to them. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 it is inter alia averred that on the application of respondent No.4, building permission was granted on 12-3-2007, that as the construction could not be completed within the permitted time under the building permission, respondent No.4 has made an application for renewal and that vide proceedings dated 7-12-2009, the permission was renewed. The counter affidavit has denied the claim of the petitioners that they have made representations by stating that no such representations have been received. Inasmuch as respondent No.4 is stated to have been granted building permission which was renewed, no mandamus can be issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to prevent respondent No.4 from raising constructions so long as the building permission obtained by him continues to be in force. If the petitioners felt aggrieved by the granting of building permission, they are entitled to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP Nos.31194, 36889 & 24368 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 18-1-2011 AM