IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.5482 of 2009 Between: B. Bakka Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The District Panchayat Officer, Medak District HQ at Sanga Reddy and three others ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, Mr.G. Elisha, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri.Venumadhav Reddy, learned counsel for the fourth respondent. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not renewing the permission for construction of the house as per the representation dated 05-11-2008 and 26-12-2008 is illegal, arbitrary and to further direct the respondents not to interfere with the construction, which is being made by the petitioner as per plan submitted to the respondents in terms of Sub Section 3 of Section 127 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and pass such other suitable orders. 3. This court issued rule nisi on 18-03-2009 and granted interim direction as hereunder in W.P.M.P.No.7168 of 2009: “There shall be interim direction to the respondents not to interfere with the constructions made by the petitioner in accordance with the plan sanctioned in favour of the petitioner on 30-01-2007”. 4. It is stated that the father of the writ petitioner made representation to the Gram Panchayat for permission for construction of a house in November, 2003. Accordingly, the third respondent Gram Panchayat granted permission on 26-12-2003 for construction of the house. While the matter stood thus, the father of the petitioner died on 12-02-2004 and the petitioner could not proceed with the construction due to sudden demise of his father. Therefore, he again made a representation on 01-01-2007 to the Gram Panchayat for renewal of the permission which was granted on 26-12-2003. By an order dated 30th January, 2007 the second respondent granted renewal. 5. Further it is stated that when the petitioner started construction in the said premises in the month of October, 2008, the second respondent issued notice on 18-10-2008 to stop the construction of the compound wall. He submitted his reply on 24- 10-2008 stating that they have already constructed the compound wall as per the permission only, though no permission is required for compound wall. He again requested the Gram Panchayat on 05-11-2008 to grant renewal for construction of the house. When no action has been taken, again he made request on 26-12-2008, but the respondents neither granted permission nor rejected his application. The action of the respondents in not renewing his application is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred in short as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience). 6. It is also stated that as per Sub Section 3 of Section 127 of the Act the authorities are expected either to grant permission or refuse to grant permission. If no orders are passed by the authorities in writing within 15 days from the date of receipt of the application, it deemed to have been granted permission. When he is proceeding with the work the respondents are stopping their construction without any reason. 7. Further it is stated that when the gram panchayat refused to receive the application by hand. He sent the same by registered post with acknowledgment due and the same is acknowledged by the respondents in the month of November 2008 itself and when he made representation on 26-12-2008 the Sarpanch refused to receive the same and thereby he sent the same by registered post and the Sarpanch refused to receive the registered letter but so far no permission is granted and so far as the Panchayat Secretary is concerned he had received the same. 8. The second respondent filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the writ petition is misconceived, and the petitioner herein approached this court with unclean hands and suppressed all the facts and produced the fake documents before this court and obtained interim orders by misleading this court. 9. Further it is stated that so far no permission had been granted to the petitioner either in the year 2003 or in the year 2007 by the Gram Panchayat. There is no record to show that the permission was granted by the Gram Panchayat to the petitioner for construction of the residential house in the disputed land. There are several objections raised by the adjacent land owners in this regard. The Extension Officer of the Panchayat Raj Department had conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report to the District Panchayat Officer and also suggested that the constructions being raised by the petitioner are illegal. Hence, action had to be taken according to the Act. The petitioner had also not produced any record with regard to the title of the said land where the construction is being raised by him. According to the revision records it is mentioned that the petitioner is having only 254 Sq. Yds. but whereas the petitioner is constructing in the entire area which belongs to the adjacent residents. 10. It is also stated that the so-called permission, which was granted by the Gram Panchayat dated 26-12-2003 given by the then Sarpanch who is not competent to grant permission, according to G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26-02-2002. The Executive Authority/Panchayat Secretary is competent to grant permission after calling for the objections, and after notifying the same, permission can be granted, without there being any procedure followed by the then Sarpanch who had granted the permission is not valid. Subsequently the renewal, which was granted by the Panchayat Secretary in the year 2007 is also fake which was not recorded in the records of the Gram Panchayat. It is learnt that the then Panchayat Secretary had granted permission dated 30-01-2007, was forcibly obtained by the petitioner. But the permission, which was granted by the then Panchayat Secretary had no knowledge either to the Sarpanch or to the Gram Panchayat. 11. It is also stated that on 26-12-2008 the petitioner herein had addressed a letter to the Sarpanch/Secretary seeking permission for construction. It is very surprise that once the permission is granted by the Gram Panchayat in the year 2003 and also renewed by the Panchayat Secretary in the year 2007, the question of again granting permission in the year 2008 does not arise. Hence, the petitioner herein had played fraud on the Gram Panchayat and also threatening the Panchayat Secretary as well as the staff of the office of the Gram Panchayat by issuing a reply dated 24-10-2008. This particular reply had been given by the petitioner in pursuance of the notice given by the Gram Panchayat dated 18-10-2008 requesting to stop the illegal construction without obtaining any valid permission. Prior to that on 15-10-2008 this respondent had issued a notice requesting to stop the illegal construction. The petitioner herein had stated in his reply threatening the Secretary that “he is going to take suitable action if you issue this type of false and irrelevant notices”. 12. Further it is stated that at the time of enquiry conducted by the Extension Officer, Panchayat Raj Department, Zaheerabad Mandal, he had requested the petitioner and also the other adjacent land owners to produce the records pertaining to the title and others. But either the petitioner nor the adjacent land owners have produced the title deeds, but it is found that on 04-01-2007 the then Panchayat Secretary who had issued a letter to the adjacent land owner i.e., Sri K. Shankar Reddy, S/o.Narayana Reddy had possessed a own house No.5-41 and the open walls and having 3080 Sq. Fts., of the land in front of the house. After verifying the revision record by the E.O.P.R.D. it is found that the petitioner has got only 254 Sq.Yds., in the above said land. The petitioner herein is constructing a residential house just in front of Shankar Reddy who is the adjacent landowner and who is having an open land of 3080 Sq.Fts., in front of the house. But in the report he concluded that no document had been produced by any one, with regard to this land and according to the revision record the petitioner and K. Shankar Reddy are claiming the land. In those circumstances the remaining land can be recovered and that can be used for the Gram Panchayat purpose. Till then, the petitioner has to be restrained for constructing the illegal construction. In pursuance of the report submitted by the E.O.P.R.D. the District Panchayat Officer in his proceedings No.3843/2008/A4-Panchayat dated 23-03-2009 instructed the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Satwar take action by not allowing the illegal constructions in the disputed land and submit a detailed report. The E.O.P.R.D. also addressed a letter to the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Satwar to take action according to the Act by taking Police protection in restraining the illegal constructions in the disputed land. 13. It is also stated that in view of the report submitted by the E.O.P.R.D. in pursuance of the instructions given by the District Panchayat Officer the petitioner had no right to construct the building and the construction being raised by the petitioner is unauthorized, no permission had been granted so far by the Gram Panchayat and the so called permission granted by the earlier Sarpanch or by the earlier Secretary are illegal, and void. The petitioner had no title to construct the residential house in the said premises. Hence, the petitioner had to be restrained for constructing the illegal construction. There is no illegality in obstructing the petitioner for illegal constructions by the Gram Panchayat by issuing a notice. The G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26-02- 2002 prescribed that the procedure has to be followed for restraining the illegal construction, which is being followed by the Gram Panchayat scrupulously in obstructing the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled any relief in this writ petition, but the petitioner herein had suppressed all the above facts and produced fake documents and obtained the interim order by misleading this court. 14. A reply affidavit also had been filed again reiterating the stand taken in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. No doubt, certain further facts also had been narrated and the stand taken in the counter-affidavit also is specifically denied. 15. Be that as it may, in the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, this court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition be disposed of directing the first respondent to look into this aspect and make appropriate orders, in accordance with law, at the earliest point of time. Till appropriate orders are made by the first respondent in this regard, status-quo obtaining as on today to be maintained. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J December 16, 2009. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.5482 of 2009 December 16, 2009