THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.28666 of 2008 Date: 24.11.2010 Between: Kanagala Radhakrishna Murthy …Petitioner And The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.28666 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of land admeasuring an extent of Acs.13-30 gts situated in Sy.Nos.7/A, 9/A, 355, 357 to 359, 374 and 444 of Tammarabandapalem village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District. According to the petitioner, his ancestors were the owners of an extent of Acs.20-00 of land, out of which an extent of Acs.6-30 gts were sold to one Vennapusa Raghavendra Reddy and his brothers on 12.10.1978 through an unregistered agreement of sale. The said purchasers also alienated the land to some third party, who submitted an application to the 4th respondent-Gram Panchayat for sanction of layout under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for brevity “the Act”). It is the grievance of the petitioner that the layout application covers the land to an extent of Acs.7-47 gts, which is in excess of Acs.6-30 gts, which was alienated by his ancestors to one Vennapusa Raghavendra Reddy. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the third party has encroached upon his land to an extent of Ac.1-74 gts and applied for sanction of layout. The 4th respondent, without examining the same and without following the procedure prescribed under Section 268 of the Act, had sanctioned the layout bearing No.18/GP/2008, dated 12.3.2008, to an extent of Acs.7- 47 gts. Therefore, the petitioner filed a representation, dated 12.3.2008, complaining that layout cannot be granted without following the procedure prescribed under the Act. However, the 4th respondent not only sanctioned, but also granted permission for construction of houses in the said land. Therefore, the petitioner filed a representation, dated 25.10.2008, to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to enquire with regard to the illegal sanction of layout and to stop the construction work. Since the said representation was not considered by the respondents, he filed the present writ petition to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not taking action on his representation as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to conduct enquiry into the matter and take appropriate action against the 4th respondent-Gram Panchayat and to cancel the layout bearing No.18/GP/2008, dated 12.3.2008. 2. The Secretary of the 4th respondent Gram Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit denying that the petitioner made representations, dated 12.3.2008 and 25.10.2008. It is stated that one Dega Babu submitted an application, dated 20.2.2008, with a layout plan in Sy.Nos.359, 372 and 374 of Thammarabandapalem Gram Panchayat, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District, and the said application was placed before the Gram Panchayat on 12.3.2008 and the Gram Panchayat passed an unanimous resolution for granting approval of the plan and accordingly, by order dated 23.4.2008, the approval was given. It is specifically stated that before granting approval, he personally visited the premises and verified the documents filed by the applicant Dega Babu, such as sale deed, pattadar pass books issued by the Revenue Department and also the link documents. After satisfying, in all respects, the matter was placed before the Gram Panchayat and thereafter permission for construction was also granted on 25.10.2008, therefore, there is no illegality either in granting approval of the layout or the permission for construction in favour of Sri Dega Babu. It is further stated that the petitioner made a representation complaining that some persons encroached his land and in respect of the said representation, a detailed reply was given on 20.3.2008. Finally, it is stated that the layout was sanctioned and construction permission was granted in accordance with the rules. 3. The 3rd respondent-Divisional Panchayat Officer (FAC), Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, filed a separate counter on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, wherein it has been specifically denied that the petitioner made representations, dated 12.3.2008 and 25.10.2008. On all other aspects, the counter is more or less similar to the counter filed by the 4th respondent. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that his land to an extent of Ac.1-17 gts was encroached by a third party Sri Dega Babu and hence the 4th respondent has no authority to sanction layout covering the said extent also. 6. It may be true that as per Rule 3 of the Layout and Building Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 26.2.2002, an application for sanction of layout shall be made to the Executive authority along with certain documents, including copy of ownership, documents of the plot/property/land concerned, together with non-encumbrance certificate from the Registration Department. In this regard, in the counter affidavit the 4th respondent has specifically stated that the applicant Dega Babu submitted a sale deed showing his possession over an extent of Acs.7-36 gts in Sy.Nos.359, 372 and 374. On verification of the said sale deed, pattadar pass books issued by the Revenue Department and other link documents furnished by the applicant and also on personal inspection of the land, sanction was accorded in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. 7. From the above, it is evident that the 4th respondent has followed the due procedure and there is no illegality in sanctioning of layout to the applicant Dega Babu. Though the learned counsel for petitioner contends that the land of the petitioner had been encroached and that the 4th respondent-Gram Panchayat did not take this aspect into consideration while sanctioning the layout, it is not possible for this Court whether any such encroachment had been made and, if so, by whom and all these questions cannot be gone into in a writ petition. Further more, the petitioner, in fact, did not even implead the said Dega Babu as a party-respondent in the writ petition, who allegedly encroached upon his land to an extent of Ac.1-17 gts and in whose favour the layout was sanctioned. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. It is open to the petitioner to work out his remedies with regard to the alleged encroachment in an appropriate forum. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 24.11.2010. NOTE: Issue C.C. in two weeks. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.28666 of 2008 24.11.2010 (Msr)