IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23711 of 2008 Between: Nadella Satyanarayana, S/o. N. Apparao, R/o. Pothavaram Village, Nallacherla Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Panchayat Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The District Town and Country Planning Officer, West Godavari District. 3 The Panchayat Secretary, Pothavaram Grampanchayat, Pothavaram, Nallacherla Mandal, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not approval of petitioner layout and technical sanction of Petitioner land an extent of Ac. 1.30 cents in R.S.No. 287/3 situated at Pothavaram Village, Nallcherla Mandal, West Godavari District is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and consequentially direct the respondents to issue technical approval of petitioner layout an extent of Ac. 1.30 cents in R.S.No. 287/3 situated at Pothavaram Village, Nallacherla Mandal, West Godavari District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of Ac.1.30 cents of land in R.S.No.287/3 situated at Pothavaram Village, Nallacherla Mandal, West Godavari District. He submitted an application before the Panchayat Secretary of the Pothavaram Gram Panchayat, the third respondent; the District Panchayat Oﬃcer, Eluru, the ﬁrst respondent; and the District Town and County Planning Oﬃcer, Eluru, the second respondent, with a prayer to accord permission for converting the land into house sites. The conversion charges were also paid and the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer is said to have accorded permission. The ﬁrst respondent, in turn, addressed a letter in August, 2007, to the second respondent, recommending that the permission applied for by the petitioner be accorded. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken thereon so far. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat. Through a resolution, dated 07.07.2007, the Gram Panchayat accorded permission for conversion of the land of the petitioner into house sites. This was, in turn, followed by grant of permission by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer under the relevant provisions of law. After examining the matter in detail, the ﬁrst respondent addressed a letter in August, 2007 to the second respondent pointing out that the petitioner is eligible for the permission. More than one year has elapsed, since the matter reached the second respondent. In case the application of the petitioner was defective, in any manner, the same ought to have been pointed out. There cannot be any justiﬁcation for keeping the application pending for such a long time. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders, on the application of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.03.11.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ