IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 21454 of 2006 Between: 1 Smt. M. Usha rani W/o. Late Arunkumar Reddy R/o. Tukkuguda (V), Maheswaram (M) Ranga Reddy District. 2 Kum. M. Surekha D/o. Late Arunkumar Reddy R/o. Tukkuguda (V), Maheswaram (M) Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Gram Panchayat , Rep.. by its Executive Officer, Tukkuguda (V), Maheshwaram Mandal, 2 The Collector, Ranga Reddy, Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram Mandal, R.R. District. 4 Koppula Vijaya Kumar Goud S/o. Late Kistaiah Goud Ranga Reddy District. 5 Koppula Yadaiah Goud S/o. Late Kistaiah Goud Ranga Reddy District. 6 Koppula Devender Goud S/o. Late Kistaiah Goud Ranga Reddy District. 7 Koppula Srinivas Goud S/o. Late Kistaiah Goud Ranga Reddy 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 may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents in permitting the construction by respondents 5 to 8 in our plot admeasuring 335 sq. yards situated at Srinagar under Respondent No. 1-Gram Panchayat as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and issue a consequential direction to take immediate action in terms of the said Act. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI J.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G.ELISHA (SC FOR ZPPS AND MPPS,TEL REG) The Court made the following : ORDER: The 1st petitioner claims that the plot admeasuring 335 sq. yards situated at Srinagar village of Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, belongs to her father-in-law, from whom she succeeded to the same. It is her case that her father-in-law, during his lifetime, obtained permission from the 1st respondent on 29.12.1999 for construction of a house in the said plot, but however, he could not complete the construction for want of funds and also due to his ill-health. The main grievance of the petitioners is that in respect of the aforesaid land, the unofficial respondents obtained construction permission from respondent No.1 and began to raise constructions over the same, but however, they could prevent them and gave a representation to respondent No.1 requesting to take action for cancellation of the permit issued in favour of the unofficial respondents and also to demolish the illegal constructions raised by them, but so far the 1st respondent has not taken any action thereon. A counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent stating that the construction permission in respect of the plot admeasuring 335 sq. yards situated at Srinagar of Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was granted to the father-in-law of the 1st petitioner on 29.12.1999 and it was in force upto one year as per the rules as on that day, and subsequently, no application for renewal to complete the construction was submitted either by the father-in-law of the 1st petitioner or the petitioners. It is also stated that no construction permission was granted to the unofficial respondents in respect of the subject plot. It is further stated that, pursuant to the representation submitted by the petitioners on 06.10.2006 requesting to stop the illegal constructions made by the 6th respondent and others, notice has been issued to the 6th respondent directing him to stop the illegal constructions and to submit all necessary documents in proof of his title over the subject plot. It is further stated that the subject plot is not the public road and, therefore, it has no obligation to remove the encroachment made by the unofficial respondents and that if there is any dispute regarding title over the subject plot between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents, the petitioners have to approach the competent civil Court by filing a civil suit seeking appropriate relief. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the unofficial respondents stating that the 4th respondent is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 350 sq. yards situated at Srinagar village, H/o. Tukkuguda village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by virtue of his purchase under a sale document dated 06.04.1998 for valuable consideration by tracing out his title from the original owners Bantu Kistaiah and Bantu Sriramulu, both sons of late Sri Bantu Hanumaiah, and ever since his purchase, himself and respondents 5 to 7, who are none other than his younger brothers, have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is also stated that they obtained permission from the 1st respondent on 25.08.2001 for construction of house over the subject plot, but however, due to economic problems, they could not commence the construction work, and therefore, obtained fresh permission from the 1st respondent Gram Panchayat on 06.06.2006, who also allotted house number to the subject plot. Thereafter, they have been paying taxes to the 1st respondent and also obtained service connection from CPDCL, A.P. and, thus, they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment in the capacity of owners in respect of the subject plot. It is further stated that when the 1st petitioner along with one Narsimha Reddy and Pochi Reddy tried to interfere with their peaceful possession over the subject plot and tried to dispossess them therefrom, they filed O.S.No.265 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, against the Sarpanch, Tukkuguda Gram Panchayat and others, for perpetual injunction, and also filed an application in I.A.No.880 of 2006 seeking temporary injunction against the 1st petitioner and others. The unofficial respondents also stated that the 1st petitioner, as a counterblast to the said suit, has filed the present writ petition and except making bald allegations that her father-in-law obtained permission from the 1st respondent on 29.12.1999, the petitioners have not asserted their ownership over the subject plot. It is further stated by the unofficial respondents that the 1st respondent has permitted them, as per the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, to make constructions over the subject plot and they did not encroach any public road. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-Gram Panchayat and the learned Counsel appearing for unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 7. As can be seen from the rival contentions, there is title dispute between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents with respect to the land on which the unofficial respondents are said to be making constructions. The unofficial respondents state that when the petitioners and others tried to interfere with their peaceful possession of the land in question, they filed civil suit in O.S. No. 265 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, and the same is pending. Though the petitioners claim that the unofficial respondents are making constructions based on the permissions granted by respondent No.1- Gram Panchayat, and that despite making representation to respondent No.1 to cancel the permission, no action thereon had been taken, the fact remains that respondent No.1 disputed granting of any permission to the unofficial respondents and it is their case that in pursuance of the representation of the petitioners, they issued notice to respondent No.6 directing him to remove the illegal constructions, and that respondent No.1 is not concerned with the alleged encroachment made by the unofficial respondents, particularly when the alleged constructions are being made on private land and not public road. Be that as it may, since the civil dispute is pending in the civil Court, no relief as prayed for by the petitioners can be granted, hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to obtain necessary reliefs from the competent civil Court by getting their title disputes adjudicated. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 29.06.2009 v v