IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1474 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11/07/2007 in WP NO : 6156 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Eruvenit Balshetty S/o.Venkataiah R/o.Telkapalli village & Mandal Mahaboobnagar District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Anudeep S/o Sri Nagesh Smt.K.Lalithamma, W/o.Sri Nagaiah, aged about 28 years Occ:Housewife, R/o.Relkapalli village, Nagarkurnool Mandal,Mahabubnagar District 2 The District Collector, (Panchayat Wing) Mahabubnagar District. 3 The Divisonal Panchayat Officer Nagarkurnool, Mahabubnagar District. 4 The Gram panchayat, Telkapally village & Mandal Nagarkurnool village & Mandal, Nagarkurnool, rep.by its Sarpanch, Mahabubnagar District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K.SREENIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1474 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal is filed by the appellant questioning the order, dated 11.7.2007 in WP No.6156 of 2002. The appellant herein is the third party and he filed the present writ appeal with the leave of the Court. The writ petitioner-1st respondent herein represented by his guardian being minor, filed the above writ petition seeking to declare the action of the authorities in interfering with the construction being made in Plot No.1, Survey No.497 of Telkapalli Village, Nagarkurnool Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, as arbitrary and illegal and further to declare that he is entitled to proceed with the construction as per the plan submitted to the respondent-authorities under the deeming clause of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 in the interest of Justice, on the ground that he submitted an application on 9.11.2001 to the 3rd respondent-Grampanchayat to grant permission to construct a shop in the plot in question, but the authorities neither granted nor rejected his application and hence, he issued a notice dated 19.3.2002 to the 3rd respondent and started construction and thereafter, the 3rd respondent attempted to stop it. The learned Single Judge having observed that it is evident from the provision 127 (3) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 that an application made for licence or permission must be disposed of within fifteen days from the date of receipt and in case, it is not so disposed of, the licence or the permission, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have been granted and that it is true that an incomplete and inappropriate application cannot give rise to any deemed permission and such a situation would arise, if only the defects in the application are pointed out and the applicant had failed to rectify the same and that the operation of the deeming clause cannot be stopped unless the defect, if any, noticed by the local authority is communicated to the applicant and that the 3rd respondent failed to pass any specific order on the application submitted by the petitioner and that he did not choose to point out any defect in the application, even after receipt of notice dated 19.3.2002 and therefore, it is not open to the 3rd respondent to plead that the application was defective or to interfere with the construction, allowed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge also made it clear that the writ petitioner shall conform to the requirements, such as set back and regulations, if any, stipulated for the area. Having aggrieved by the same, the appellant, who is a third party, filed the present appeal with the leave of the Court on the ground that the writ petitioner suppressed the real material facts, particularly as to the pendency of the civil suit in O.S.No.30 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Nagarkurnool, Mahabubnagar District in connection with the same subject matter in Sy.No.497 and question of right and title of the alleged vendors of the writ petitioner is involved in the said suit and that the brother of the appellant filed objections dated 8.11.2001 before the Grampanchayat not to grant any permissions to anybody and that the sale deed alleged to have been obtained by the writ petitioner is after institution of the suit. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that in view of the civil litigation pending between the parties i.e., the appellant herein and the vendor of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, the writ petitioner shall be restrained from making further construction and the open area should be left over. Heard the learned Counsel for the respondents also. Since the claim made by the appellant is with reference to the disputed questions of fact and in view of the controversy raised before this Court as to the pendency of litigation in respect of the property in question in a Civil Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we feel it just and proper to direct the appellant herein to agitate his rights before the appropriate forum. But, however, it is made clear that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner shall make his constructions in conformity with the plan and the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. Subject to the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice C.V. Nargarjuna Reddy Dated: 3.2.2009 Nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1474 of 2008 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 3rd February, 2009