IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 22005 of 2003 Between: Battula Samuel, S/o. Late B.Samson, R/o. H.No.41/116, Sanjaypuri, Balanagar, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The President, Choudaryguda Gram Panchayat, Choudaryguda Gram Panchayat, Choudaryguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not sanctioning the permission for the construction of residential building in Plot Nos.78, 79, 93 and 94 admeasuring 400 sq.yards, Sy.No.854, situated at Choudaryguda Hamlet of Korramel Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as per the plan submitted by the petitioner herein on 03-07-2003, as arbitarary, illegal and as against the A.P. Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the construction of the building of the petitioner in Plot Nos. 78,79,93 and 94 admeasuring 400 sq.yards, Sy.No.854, situated at Choudaryguda Hamlet of Korramel Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SUBHANI.S.M. Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.22005 of 2003 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in not sanctioning permission for construction of residential building in Plot Nos.78, 79, 93 and 94 admeasuring 400 sq.yards in Sy.No.854, situated at Choudaryguda, hamlet of Korremul village, Ghatkesar mandal, Ranga Reddy district as per the plan submitted by the petitioner on 3.7.2003 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Buildings) Rules, 2002 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the construction of building of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he had purchased 400 sq.yards of land in Sy.No.854 comprising in Plot Nos.78, 79, 93 and 94 and had applied for construction permission on 3.7.2003. Since the same was not sanctioned within 15 days as required under law, petitioner started raising structures on the said land deeming that permission was granted in his favour. When the respondents tried to interfere with the construction activity of the petitioner, he filed the present writ petition. During the pendency of writ petition, respondents 4 and 5 were impleaded. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that once the petitioner made an application for sanction of construction permit and the same has not been granted within 15 days as required under law, it must be deemed that the petitioner has got valid permission. According to the learned counsel, the respondents, without any authority of law are interfering with the construction activity of the petitioner at the instance of some third parties i.e. respondents 4 and 5. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 20.10.2003, granted the following interim order: “Pending further orders, the construction which is proceeded by the respondent is contrary to the Building Bye-laws approved for the said purpose and the permission is not rejected, the respondent shall not interfere with the construction”. It appears, again when the respondents started interfering with the construction activity of the petitioner, he filed Contempt Case No.1501 of 2003. In the said contempt case, respondents filed counter stating that they have not interfered with the construction activity of the petitioner, therefore the contempt case was closed. Again, it appears, when the respondents started interfering, petitioner filed another contempt case No.293 of 2006. Be that as it may, since it is the complaint of the petitioner that he had already made an application on 3.7.2003 and the same is not disposed of within 15 days and it must be deemed that the petitioner is deemed permission and he proceeded with the construction. Under those circumstances, the respondents are directed to verify the application filed by the petitioner on 3.7.2003 and pass appropriate orders, as per law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, respondents including respondents 4and 5 shall not interfere with the constructions already raised by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 17.6.2009 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.3987 of 2000 17.6.2009