THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25851 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner feels aggrieved by an endorsement, dated 21.07.2007, made by the District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District, the second respondent herein. The petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of 312 square yards of land in premises bearing No.3-57/A of Mohalla Nursing Mandir, Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. She purchased the same through a sale deed, dated 31.08.1982. On an application made by her, the Gram Panchayat accorded permission for construction, on 05.11.1984. However, the construction could not be made. At the request of the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat granted fresh permission vide proceedings, dated 08.05.2007. Complaining that respondents 5 to 8 are interfering with the construction activity, the petitioner filed a representation, dated 13.06.2007, before the second respondent. After calling for a report from the Divisional Panchayat Officer, the second respondent made the impugned endorsement to the effect that the title deed of the petitioner does not appear to be valid and that she has to work out her remedies in a civil Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that twice the Gram Panchayat accorded permission to the petitioner on being satisfied that she holds valid title and there was absolutely no justification for the endorsement made by the second respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, on the other hand, submits that it is the petitioner who invited an order from the second respondent and on the basis of a report from the Divisional Panchayat Officer, the impugned order was passed. On its part, the Gram Panchayat accorded permission to the petitioner once on 05.11.1984 and thereafter on 08.05.2007. When she faced some resistance from respondents 5 to 8, she had approached the second respondent. There was hardly anything, which the second respondent could have done. The reason is that he figures only as an appellate authority. No appeal was preferred before him. All the same, the second respondent called for the report from the Divisional Panchayat Officer and made the impugned endorsement. It cannot be said that the endorsement has given rise to any specific finding. The petitioner has already approached the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District by filing O.S.No.200 of 2008. The impugned proceedings cannot, in any way, be treated as an order adjudicating the rights of the parties. For all practical purposes, the petitioner can ignore the same and in case, she is facing any threat of interference, she has to work out her remedies in the civil Court. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, directing that the impugned endorsement, dated 21.07.2007, shall not be treated as the proceedings for determining the rights of the parties and it shall be open to the petitioner to work out her remedies in the pending suit. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:12.03.2009 kdl