IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6149 OF 2004 DATED:11.11.2010 Between: Devella Ashok Kumar … Petitioner And The District Panchayat Officer Karimnagar and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6149 OF 2004 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner questioned the order passed by the first respondent – District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar, dt.27.3.2004 in Appeal No.A7/1543/2004-Pts. By the said order, the first respondent stayed the order passed by the second respondent – Gram Panchayat, vide proceedings dt.20.3.2004, under which permission was granted to the petitioner for construction of R.C.C. house and compound wall, pending disposal of the suit in O.S. No.11 of 2004 field by the third respondent pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Manthani. The dispute relates to an house site admeasuring 245 sq. yards situated in Manthani Village and Gram Panchayat of Karimnagar District. The petitioner herein applied for grant of permission for construction of a building, to the Gram Panchayat, Manthani. The Gram Panchayat, in the meeting held on 9.3.2004 has passed the resolution No.5(6) for grant of permission to the petitioner for construction of R.C.C. Building along with compound wall, to the petitioner, and a consequential permission was granted on 20.3.2004, vide proceedings in File No.A2/67/2004. Aggrieved by such grant of permission, the third respondent filed an appeal before the District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar. The petitioner herein also filed a caveat petition before the appellate authority. The appellate authority has passed the impugned order staying operation of the order granting permission to the petitioner for construction of the building, mainly on three grounds – that the Gram Panchayat has not disposed of the objection petition filed by one D. Praveen Kumar before granting permission in favour of the petitioner herein; that the Gram Panchayat has not followed the Rules before granting permission; and that the third respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No.11 of 2004 before the Senior Civil Judge, Manthani, for declaration of title with regard to the said property and the same is pending consideration. Sri T.S. Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there are no grounds at all to stay the construction permission granted by the Gram Panchayat to the petitioner. It is submitted that with regard to the very same piece of land, the third respondent has filed a suit in O.S. No.272 of 1990 for injunction on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Manthani, against the petitioner and one other and the said suit was ended in dismissal. It is further submitted that pendency of the suit for declaration of title filed by the third respondent cannot be a ground to stay the construction permission granted in favour of the petitioner. On the other hand, Sri G. Anandam, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, submitted that inasmuch as there is no valid document in favour of the petitioner, in view of the appeal filed by the third respondent, the impugned order is passed by the appellate authority. It is further submitted that as the suit filed by the third respondent for declaration of title is still pending consideration, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. In this case, it is to be noticed that mere grant of permission by the competent authority under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, will not confer any title to the person in whose favour permission for construction of building is granted. With regard to the very same piece of land, the third respondent has already filed a suit in O.S. No.272 of 1990 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Manthani, for injunction, and the same was dismissed by recording a finding that third respondent is not in possession of the property. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that the said piece of land has been in his possession and based on the application filed by the petitioner, the Gram Panachayat passed a resolution granting permission for construction of building. It is true that one Sri D. Praveen Kumar filed objections before the Gram Panchayat, but he has not filed any appeal before the appellate authority. If the objections filed by D. Praveen Kumar were not considered, it is for him to contest the proceedings, but the same is not a ground to interfere with the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat granting permission to the petitioner for construction of building, in the appeal filed by the third respondent herein. Further, without any specific finding and merely stating that permission granted is in contravention of the Rules, is also not a ground to stay the permission granted for construction of the building. In any event, pendency of the suit filed by the third respondent in O.S. No.11 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Manthani, for declaration of title also cannot be a ground to stay the construction permission granted by the Gram Panchayat. Ultimately, if the third respondent succeeds in the title suit, she may get back the title with regard to the disputed site. Merely because a suit is filed by the third respondent seeking declaration of title with regard to the aforesaid piece of land, in the absence of any interim order, it is not a ground to stay the construction permission granted to the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat pending disposal of the suit in O.S. No.11 of 2004. Under the scheme of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made thereunder, there is no such power conferred on the appellate authority to grant interim orders pending disposal of the suits before Civil Courts. In that view of the matter, no valid grounds are assigned by the appellate authority in passing the impugned order and as such it is liable to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order of the first respondent – District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar, dt.27.3.2004 passed in Appeal No.A7/1543/2004-Pts., is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 11.11.2010 bnr