THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.17067 of 2001 September 23, 2010 Between: Smt.Chandramukhi, W/o.Anand Kumar … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.17067 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner purchased land admeasuring 255 Sq.yards in plot No.146-A comprised in S.No.74/9 situated at East Marredpally forming part of layout of about Acs.24.00 under registered sale deed dated 20.6.1984. She purchased the said land from ‘Seva Mandal’ a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli. It appears that the society made application to the Government for exemption of land from the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The society obtained layout approval from Cantonment Board and allotted plots to its members. The petitioner applied to the fourth respondent – Secunderabad Cantonment Board (SCB) – for building permission. Alleging that acting under the instructions of second respondent, fourth respondent rejected the application, the instant writ petition is filed. The counter affidavit is filed on 05.11.2002 stating that the subject land, which is part of S.No.74 of Marredpally Paigah Village, is Government land. The Government filed L.G.C. No.167 of 1997 against various societies existing in the Cantonment area. The allegation that the land is patta land is denied. It is alleged that it is Government land and that after the abolition of Paigahs, the land vested in the Government. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner and the counsel appearing for respondents. The Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) brought to the notice of this Court that LGC No.167 of 1997 was dismissed by the Special Court constituted under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. She also submits that the Government is contemplating to file writ petition and therefore the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise construction. The submission cannot be sustained. When the L.G.C. is dismissed, it only means that the Government failed to prove their title over the land or that the petitioner, who purchased the house site from the society, is land grabber. If the petitioner had already obtained building permission from the SCB, such construction cannot be treated as illegal. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of, observing that the Revenue authorities cannot interfere with the right of petitioner to enjoy the property. The petitioner is given liberty to obtain necessary permission and proceed further. If any illegal construction is made, it shall be open to fourth respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) September 23, 2010 YS