THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.14541 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner herein claims to be one of the co-owners of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.28.21 gts situated in Sy.Nos. 9 & 10 of Kundanpally village, Godumakunta Gram Panchayat, Ranga Reddy District. It is alleged that some of the co-owners alienated the above said undivided landed property without any authorization and the vendees so purchased have been selling the said land on the basis of unapproved lay-outs. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority issued a caution notice in January, 2004 cautioning the general public against purchasing any plot of land offered by the land developers in the lay outs specified thereunder, which includes the land in respect of which the petitioner makes a claim. Now this writ petition is filed contending that certain third parties are proceeding with illegal constructions on the land situated in Sy.Nos.9 and 10 on the basis of unauthorized lay outs and in spite of repeated representations made by the petitioner, respondents 7 and 8 i.e., Goduma Kunta Gram Panchayat, Keesara Mandal failed to take any action. Thus, a declaration is sought that the inaction on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. Sri G. Elisha, the learned standing counsel for the Gram Panchayat under instructions submitted that the Gram Panchayat has not granted any building permission in respect of any part of the land situated in Sy.Nos.9 and 10 of Kundanpally village. It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.64 of 2001 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District seeking partition and consequential cancellation of the sale deeds alleged to have been executed by some of the co-owners. The said suit is pending as on today. Having regard to the above facts and keeping in view the submission of the learned standing counsel for respondents 7 and 8 that no building permission has been granted by the Gram Panchayat for making any constructions on the land situated in Sy.Nos.9 and 10 of Kundanpally village, no further enquiry is necessary in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to work out appropriate common law remedy for redressal of his grievance, if any, so far as the unauthorized and illegal constructions allegedly being made by third parties. No costs. 21.07.2008. Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.14541 of 2008 Between: Vanjari Venkatesh S/o.Late Gandaiah, R/o.Kundanpally (V) Keesara Mandal, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad-4. 2 The District Collector, R.R. District, Hyderabad. 3 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Secunderabad-3. 4 District Panchayat Officer, R.R. District, Hyderabad. 5 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, East Division, R.R. District, Hyderabad. 6 Extension Officer (PR and RD) M.P. Keesara, R.R. District, Hyderabad. 7 Panchayat Secretary, Goduma Kunta Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 8 The Sarpanch, Goduma Kunta Gram Panchayat, Keesara Mandal, R.R. 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 containing the illegal constructions on unauthorized layouts of Sy.Nos. 9 & 10 of Kundanpally Village, Godumakunta Grampanchayat, R.R. District as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents to pull down the structures as per law pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. C.M.R.VELU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following: