IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6080 of 2009 Between: G. Madhusudan Rao S/o. Balakistaiah R/o. H.No.17-2-870/40, Maddannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Thasildar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Office At Saroornagar. 2 The Grampanchayat, Jillelaguda village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, rep. by its Sarpanch. .....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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to disposes the petitioner from the possession and enjoyment of his owned plot bearing No.119/A, in Sy.No.27 at Mythripuram Colony, under Jillelaguda Grampanchayat, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without following any due process of law and without notice as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents not to disposes the petitioner from the possession of the said plot without due process of law and notice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.6080 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner claims to have purchased open plot of 193 sq.yards in Survey No.27 of Mythripuram Colony, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 22.01.2009. According to the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat, Jillelaguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the second respondent, sanctioned a layout in respect of land in Survey No.27 and the plot sold in favour of the petitioner was an old well. It is stated that the owner of the land filled the well and sold the resultant plot in favour of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are claiming the plot purchased by him as belonging to the Gram Panchayat and preventing him from undertaking any activity thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent. The plot said to have been purchased by the petitioner is not part of sanctioned layout. It is not known as to whether the old well was shown towards open area in the layout. The petitioner has not acquired perfect title to the plot. Under these circumstances, he cannot be permitted to exercise rights of ownership over it. He has to undertake two steps, namely, to get the property sold in his favour through a registered sale deed and to verify whether the plot was part of the sanctioned layout. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to acquire perfect title over the property in question and to apply to the Gram Panchayat seeking permission to construct, if it is cleared as a plot in the sanctioned layout, either as it was sanctioned originally or by subsequent modification. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J Dt.24.03.2009 VGB