HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.20001 of 2010 Date: August 30, 2010 Between: M/s. SGN Air Systems Pvt. Ltd., represented by its One of the Directors G. Ravi Shankar, S/o.- S. Gopala Krishnan Nair, aged 31 years, Occ: business, R/o.H.No.31, H-Block, Madhuranagar, Hyderabad – 500 038 … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and four others … Respondents Order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayatraj & Rural Development for respondents 1 to 3, Sri G. Elisha, learned standing counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and also Sri V.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is involved in the business of air- blowers and fans. It had made an application on 15-06- 2007, as contemplated under Section 120 of the A.P. Panchayatraj Act, 1994, to the fourth respondent- Grampanchayat, Mambapur, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District, seeking permission to establish a small-scale industry, in the land bearing Sy.No.365 in an extent of Ac.4.00 Guntas, situated at Mambapur village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District, for manufacturing air-handling systems, blowers, fans etc. Based on the said application, the fourth respondent-Grampanchayat issued letter dated 31-12-2007 vide Lr.No.GP Mambapur, rejecting the proposal of the petitioner on the following grounds: 1) With regard to the land in question, i.e. Sy.No.365, there are no orders of conversion from agricultural purpose to that of non-agricultural purpose. 2) There is no permission from the Pollution Control Board. 3) There is a dispute with regard to the said land between Mr.S. Gopala Krishna Nair and also Mr.V. Srinivasa Raju. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question was originally purchased and owned by M/s.Happy Roof Tiles Pvt. Ltd., which had setup an industry by obtaining loan from Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Ltd. It is stated that when the loan amount was not repaid, proceedings were initiated under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 and the said industry was transferred to M/s. Vijay Roof Tiles Pvt. Ltd., which has also committed default in payment of loan amount. It is stated that APSFC has seized the property and notified the same for sale, in response to which one Mr. Y. Nageswara Rao, proprietor of M/s. Balaji Industries purchased the said property vide registered sale deed bearing No.520 of 2005, dated 02- 02-2005, for a consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- and the said property was later sold to the father of the petitioner by name Mr.Gopala Krishna Nair, vide sale deed bearing No.2304 of 2006, dated 04-03-2006. Precisely, it is the case of the petitioner that the land in question was already in use for industrial purposes; as such, the first objection, namely, that there are no orders of conversion of the subject property from agricultural purpose to that of non- agricultural purpose stated in the letter dated 31-12-2007 is without any basis. With regard to the second objection, namely, that no permission is obtained from the Pollution Control Board, it is stated that, at this stage, no such permission at all is required. Coming to the third objection, namely, that there is a private dispute, it is the case of the petitioner that on the said ground too, its claim cannot be rejected. On the other hand, supporting the objections, as raised in the letter dated 31-12-2007, which are made basis for rejection of the application of the petitioner, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 that as much as Mambapur Grampanchayat is within the area of Urban Area notified under the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 and there is no approval from the competent authority, necessary approval of the competent authority has to be obtained, but no such approval is obtained by the petitioner. With regard to the second objection, it is stated that in view of the nature of business proposed to be carried out, clearance of the Pollution Board should be obtained and no such permission is also obtained from the Pollution Board by the petitioner. It is stated that, furthermore, there are disputes with regard to the subject property; hence, there is no illegality in the letter dated 31- 12-2007 rejecting the application of the petitioner. Sri V.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent who is impleaded as respondent No.6, submits that there is a boundary dispute with regard to the land in question and hence the petitioner is not entitled for grant of permission for setting up an industry therein. In this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 120 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. As per Section 120 of the Act, every person intending to construct or establish any factory, workshop or workplace has to obtain the permission of the Gram Panchayat in the prescribed manner. Although it is submitted by the learned standing counsel for respondents 4 and 5 that the fourth respondent-Grampanchayat is not included in the Urban Area as notified under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, it is to be noted that, for only certain buildings, permission or approval from Urban Development Authority is required, but not for every building or structure. In any event, it is to be noted that the letter dated 31-12-2007 appears to have been issued without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. It is to be seen that with regard to the subject land, sale transactions have taken place and in the said land, industries were also established. Hence, the claim of the petitioner that earlier also there were industries in the land in question has to be considered. Coming to the second objection, since, as per Section 120 of the Act, the petitioner has made an application to the Gram Panchayat, he is not required to obtain clearance from the Pollution Control Board at this stage. With regard to the third objection, it is to be seen that if there is any dispute with regard to the land in question, the aggrieved parties can approach the competent civil court, but on the ground that there is a dispute, the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected. For the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the view that it is an evidently fit case which is to be reconsidered by the respondents-authorities. Accordingly, the letter dated 31-12-2007, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, is quashed. There shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner, seeking to establish an industry, in the land in Sy.No.365 in an extent of Ac.4.00 Guntas, situated at Mambapur village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District, for manufacturing air-handling systems, blowers, fans etc, afresh, and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible. With regard to boundary dispute, it is kept open to the affected parties to put forth their case before the respondent-Grampanchayat, by way of a representation. If any such representation is made, the Grampanchayat shall consider the same in the light of the Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.67, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts.IV) Department, dated 26-02-2002 and the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj, Act, 1994. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) August 30, 2010 MRR