THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15197 of 2010 Date:15.03.2011 Between: Smt. C. Lakshmi Prasanna and another ..... Petitioners AND The District Panchayat Officer, Mahaboobnagar and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri I. Koti Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, standing counsel for Gram Panchayats Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5: D. Jaganmohan Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners claim to be the owners of lands admeasuring 304.5 sq. yards and 533 sq. yards respectively in survey No.228 of Farooqnagar/Shadnagar. The petitioners traced their title to the property in the affidavit, details of which need not be referred to for the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition. The petitioners pleaded that their property is included in the sanctioned layout plan. The petitioners made applications to respondent No.3 for permission to construct houses and accordingly two separate permissions were granted on 15.12.2009. When the petitioners started construction over their plots, respondent No.1 issued proceedings No.A1/1792/2010 dated 24.05.2010 directing respondent No.3 to stop construction by the petitioners till further orders on the ground that layout plan in respect of survey No.228 appears to include a part of the graveyard. A consequential notice was issued by respondent No.3 on 26.05.2010 directing the petitioners to stop construction until further orders. In support of their plea that the land in survey No.228 is not a graveyard, the petitioners have relied upon the details furnished by the Tahsildar, Shadnagar. Respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that the land in survey No.228/P is earmarked for graveyard, that permission granted by the Gram Panchayat on 13.09.2005 was on account of misrepresentation made by the applicants and that the petitioners are proceeding with the construction in the guise of permission granted by the Gram Panchayat on 15.09.2009. It is further stated that the Director of Town and Country Planning in his proceedings dated 20.07.1991 approved the layout proposed in survey No.228/8P of Shadnagar Village for residential plots, that the said application for proposed layout was made by one K. Lingaiah of Shadnagar and that subsequently after death of the said person, the Gram Panchayat has released the approved layout. It is further averred that while approving the layout the Director of Town and Country Planning specified Ac.0.30 guntas for graveyard and that the space left open for graveyard was encroached by the adjacent landowners reducing the extent of the existing graveyard to 881 sq. yards. It is further stated that though petitioner No.1 sold 208.55 sq. yards out of 304.5 sq. yards in survey No.228/P in favour of one Rayala Shankaraiah, S/o Mallaiah and gifted the balance extent of 105.4 sq. yards in favour of her husband through gift deed dated 26.04.2010, the Gram Panchayat has granted permission for building construction over the extent of 304.5 sq. yards in favour of petitioner No.1 and 533.33 sq. yards in favour of petitioner No.2. Respondent No.3 reiterated that as the said land is earmarked for graveyard while approving the layout, no permissions should have been granted by the Gram Panchayat. The respective pleadings of the parties throw upon certain disputed questions of fact which include whether the land over which the petitioners are seeking to construct forms part of graveyard and whether the building permissions granted by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioners are legal and valid. These issues need to be decided by respondent No.1 after considering the material on record and the version of the petitioners. As evident from his proceedings, respondent No.1 has given directions to respondent No.3 pending further orders which would show that he has not finally adjudicated upon the abovementioned disputes. Even though respondent No.1 has taken a specific stand in the counter-affidavit, if the petitioners are able to show that the views expressed by him in the counter-affidavit are contrary to the record, he shall take appropriate decision notwithstanding the said stand reflected in the counter-affidavit. Therefore, it is appropriate that respondent No.1 finally decides the nature of the land and the validity of the building permissions granted by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioners. In this view of the matter, respondent No.1 is directed to hold a detailed enquiry, wherein he shall give proper opportunity to the petitioners to put-forth their case, and pass a reasoned order thereafter. He shall complete this exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the order that may be passed by respondent No.1, they will be entitled to avail further remedies in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Till respondent No.1 takes the decision as directed above, the petitioners shall not proceed with further construction. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order dated 30.06.2010 in W.P.M.P.No.19141 of 2010 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.19141 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.Nos.4216 of 2010 and 636 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th March, 2011 GHN