HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.8361 of 2011 Date: October 17, 2011 Between: Syed Basheer … Petitioner And 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Hyderabad & 3 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.8361 of 2011 O R D E R: The petitioner claims to be the owner of plots bearing Nos.50/A and 50/B in Survey Nos.55 and 57 of Muttangi village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. He submitted an application on 19.3.2010 to the third respondent for permission to construct a building. As the third respondent did not take action on the said application, the petitioner approached the District Panchayat Officer, the second respondent herein, who by order dated 13.12.2010 in Memo No.3407/2010/A2-Pts. directed the third respondent Panchayat to redress the grievance of the petitioner. As the said order did not evoke any response from the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to accord building permission. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. Considering the fact that the plots 50/A and 50/B, which are claimed by the petitioner, do not exist in the approved layout of the colony and that the said sites are open areas meant for public purpose, the Gram Panchayat rejected the petitioner’s application on 13.4.2010 and communicated the same to the petitioner on 16.4.2010 under Certificate of Posting. 3. Sri Ch. Samson Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner could not challenge the said order since the same has not been communicated. Even though it has been stated in the counter-affidavit that the order has been communicated, no material is placed before this Court to show service of notice, except stating that the same was sent by Certificate of Posting. Since the application has already been rejected, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in this writ petition unless the order rejecting the building permission is challenged. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the third respondent Gram Panchayat be directed to serve a copy of the order so as to enable the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on merits of the case directing the third respondent to serve a copy of the order dated 13.4.2010 on the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. No costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J Date: October 17, 2011. Note: Issue C.C. in two days. //B.O.// BSB