HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 22529, 23926 & 26447 of 2010 DATE: 24.12.2010 W.P.No.22529 of 2010 Between : Ramisetty Ram Babu & others. ...Petitioners And The Grampanchayat, Kanavaram village of Rajanagaram Mandal in East Godavari District, rep. by its Panchayat Secretary & others. ...Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 22529, 23926 & 26447 of 2010 COMMON ORDER : These three writ petitions are filed, questioning the construction of poultry farm sheds in Sy.Nos.542/3, 523/3 and 356/4 of Kanavaram village in Rajanagaram Mandal of East Godavari District. As such, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. At first instance, W.P.No.22529 of 2010 is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, to declare the action of respondents 1 to 6 therein in permitting respondent No.7 to set up poultry farms in the residential localities, covered by Sy.Nos.542/3 and 523/3 of Kanavaram village of Rajanagaram Mandal in East Godavari District, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioners that all of them are residents of Kanavaram village and that the 7th respondent in the writ petition, by name, Nallamilli Chiranjeevi Reddy, is setting up poultry farms in Sy.Nos.542/3 and 523/3. Primarily, the allegation of petitioners is that the area covered by the aforesaid survey numbers, is residential area and that the permission was granted by the Grampanchayat, without consulting them. It is alleged that construction of such poultry farms in the midst of residential localities, will create nuisance and cause pollution. 4. In the said writ petition, an implead petition is filed by M/s.K.G.R.Poultry, a registered partnership Firm, through its Managing Partner, alongwith a detailed affidavit filed in support of the implead petition. In the aforesaid affidavit, it is categorically stated that respondent No.7 is neither a partner nor is concerned with the said Firm, and that there is no such person connected to the said Firm. It is stated that license is granted in its favour, by the Grampanchayat, to construct poultry and chick growing sheds. It is the case of the impleaded respondent that the said Firm is running a poultry farm at Mukkinada in Rajanagaram Mandal and with a view to construct chick growing sheds in the agricultural land covered by Sy.No.542/3 of Kanavaram village, it has applied to the Grampanchayat. It is stated that the said Firm is owner and possessor of agricultural land covered by Sy.No.542/3 to an extent of Ac.6.17½ cents, and also to an extent of Ac.0.07 cents in Sy.No.356/4 of Kanavaram village, having purchased the same from its earlier owner. In the affidavit, it is further stated that basing on their application, dated 02.07.2010, the Grampanchayat has considered the same in the meeting held on 13.07.2010 and passed a unanimous resolution on 13.07.2010 and forwarded their application to the Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Rajahmundry, and to the District Medical and Health Officer, East Godavari, for their approval. It is stated that after approval by the said authorities, the Grampanchayat, vide proceedings, dated 14.09.2010, granted permission by collecting an amount of Rs.42,429/- towards developmental charges. When the constructions are going on, the present writ petitions are filed by making false and untenable allegations. 5. The 2nd writ petition in W.P.No.23926 of 2010 is filed by making K.G.R. Poultry as respondent No.7, questioning the action of respondents 1 to 6 therein in permitting the 7th respondent to put up poultry farms in residential localities covered by Sy.No.356/4 of Kanavaram village. The allegations in the said writ petition are also similar in nature to that of W.P.No.22529 of 2010 and the 7th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, referring to the permissions granted by the Grampanchayat and the approvals granted by the Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Rajahmundry, and the District Medical and Health Officer, East Godavari. 6. The other writ petition in W.P.No.26447 of 2010 is filed by impleading one Karri Doraiah Reddy, as Managing Partner, but without making any partnership Firm as party-respondent. In the said writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the permission granted for construction of poultry farms and sought directions by making similar set of allegations, to cancel the license granted to the 7th respondent to set up poultry farms amidst residential localities in Sy.Nos.542/3 and 356/4 of Kanavaram village. At the stage of admission, this writ petition is directed to be listed along with W.P.No.23926 of 2010. Even in this writ petition, similar allegations are made to that of the first writ petition in W.P.No.22529 of 2010. 7. Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri S.R.Sanku, Sri G.Elisha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Grampanchayat, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, appearing for respondents 2 to 6 and Sri N.Siva Reddy, appearing for the unofficial respondents. 8. At the outset, it is to be noted that permissions for construction of poultry farms are granted in favour of the partnership Firm by name, K.G.R. Poultry. The 1st writ petition in W.P.No.22529 of 2010 is filed, without making the said Firm as party respondent and by merely making one individual, by name, Nallamilli Chiranjeevi Reddy as respondent No.7. In the writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the action of respondents 1 to 6 in permitting the 7th respondent to set up poultry farms in the residential localities covered by Sy.Nos.542/3 and 523/3 of Kanavaram village of Rajanagaram Mandal in East Godavari District, as illegal. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as neither any permission is granted so far nor any constructions are made by respondent No.7. In fact, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the implead petition, only K.G.R. Poultry, a partnership Firm, is granted permission, which is impleaded as respondent No.8. Inspite of details of the permissions granted in favour of the said partnership Firm, no steps have been taken by the petitioners for making suitable amendment in the prayer. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any permission in favour of 7th respondent in the writ petition, no relief can be granted as prayed for in W.P.No.22529 of 2010. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 9. Similarly, in W.P.No.26447 of 2010, though the petitioners have questioned the permission granted to respondent No.7, he is described as Managing Partner Karri Doraiah Reddy, but curiously, the Registered Firm, for which, permission is granted, is not even made party- respondent. From the averments made in the counter affidavit and from the perusal of the record, it is clear that no permission is granted in favour of respondent No.7 individually. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is also dismissed, as the relief sought for is misconceived. 10. In W.P.No.23926 of 2010, petitioners have questioned the action of respondents 1 to 6 in granting permission to the 7th respondent i.e. K.G.R. Poultry, represented by its Managing Partner. Primarily, the constructions undertaken by the registered Firm are questioned on the ground that such constructions are undertaken in the midst of the residential localities. But from the counter affidavit filed in the other writ petition, it is clear that the said partnership Firm, represented by its Managing Partner, has submitted an application for grant of permission to construct poultry farms in the agricultural lands covered by Sy.Nos.542/3, 523/3 and 356/4 of Kanavaram village. It is also not in dispute that the Grampanchayat has passed a resolution to consider such application and sought approval from various other Statutory authorities, namely, the Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Rajahmundry, and the District Medical and Health Officer, East Godavari, who, after making necessary inquiries, have also granted approvals, based upon which, permission was granted by the Grampanchayat. The permission granted by the Grampanchayat, is not questioned. The only allegation of petitioners is that they were not consulted before granting permissions by the Grampanchayat. The Grampanchayat is a body constituted under the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, and it is empowered to consider the applications as per the provisions under the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules made thereunder. If such duly constituted Statutory body has considered and granted permission, the petitioners, who are residents of the village, merely on the ground that they were not consulted, cannot question the action of respondents in granting permissions. Though the Statutory remedies of appeal and revision are available, the petitioners did not choose to avail the same. When permissions are granted based on the approvals given by the Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Rajahmundry, and the District Medical and Health Officer, East Godavari, they cannot be questioned on the ground that such constructions are made amidst of the residential localities. 11. From the affidavit filed on behalf of the contesting respondent, it is clear that the lands covered by Sy.Nos.542/3, 523/3 and 356/4 of Kanavaram village are agricultural lands and the allegation of petitioners that such constructions are made in the midst of the residential localities, is categorically denied. In that view of the matter, inasmuch as there is no other evidence to show that the constructions are taken up in the midst of the residential localities and in view of the permissions granted by the Grampanchayat authorities, which are not even challenged by availing the remedies available under the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in these writ petitions. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th December 2010 ajr