THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.10329 OF 2008 Dated: 21.10.2010 Between : P & T Colony House Welfare Association, rep. by Its President G. Vijaya Kumar and 4 others. … Petitioners And 1. The District Panchayat Officer (FAC), Rangareddy District., and 5 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.10329 OF 2008 ORDER : The 1st petitioner is an Association which is stated to have been formed for welfare of the house owners of the P & T Colony. The petitioners 2 to 4 claim to be the members of the said association, whereas the 5th petitioner claims to be the Ward Member of Medipalli Gram Panchayat. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order dated 15.12.2007 passed by the 1st respondent – District Panchayat Officer, directing the Panchayat Secretary, Medipalli Gram Panchayat to take action to issue building permission to the 6th respondent herein as per A.P. Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 (for short, ‘the Layout Rules’) is arbitrary and illegal. It is pleaded by the petitioners that 44 acres of land situated in Sy.Nos.44 to 46 at Medipalli Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R. District was purchased by the 5th respondent society in the year 1968 for construction of residential houses. The layout was sanctioned by the Gram Panchayat, according to which 15 plots i.e., Plot Nos.85, 86, 106, 107 and 311 to 321 were earmarked for communal purpose. The 6th respondent had initially purchased Plot No.374 from the 5th respondent society under a Registered Sale Deed in the year 1980. Subsequently the 6th respondent obtained a Rectification Deed, dated 18.5.2007, from the 5th respondent society getting Plot No.106 registered in his favour in the place of Plot No.374. The 6th respondent had also obtained the necessary permission dated 22.6.2007 from the 2nd respondent – Panchayat Secretary, Medipalli Gram Panchayat for construction of a house in Plot No.106. However having regard to the objections raised by the petitioners herein as well as other residents of the colony, the 2nd respondent by order 28.6.2007 cancelled the building permission dated 22.6.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the 6th respondent made a representation before the 1st respondent – District Panchayat Officer. On the basis of the said representation, the impugned order dated 15.12.2007 came to be passed by the 1st respondent revoking the 2nd respondent’s order dated 28.6.2007 directing Panchayat Secretary to take action to issue building permission to the 6th respondent as per the Layout Rules made in G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 26.2.2002. The said order dated 15.12.2007 is challenged in this writ petition contending that since the Rectification Deed dated 18.5.2007 executed in favour of the 6th respondent transferring Plot No.106, which was earmarked in the layout as a common area was illegal, the 6th respondent was not a lawful owner of Plot No.106 and consequently no permission could have been granted for construction in the said plot. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that Plot No.374 purchased by the 6th respondent in the year 1980 was subsequently occupied by the Forest Department. In the circumstances, the 6th respondent requested the 5th respondent society to allot an alternative plot. As his request was not considered, the 6th respondent approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rangareddy District. However the complaint was rejected by the District Forum on the ground that he failed to make the complaint within two years from the date of registration. Challenging the said order, the 6th respondent filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and the same was allowed by order dated 9.11.2005 directing the society to allot Plot No.106 to the 6th respondent herein in lieu of Plot No.374. Pursuant thereto, the Rectification Deed dated 18.5.2007 was executed by the 5th respondent society transferring Plot No.106 in favour of the 6th respondent. Thereafter, the 6th respondent made an application dated 18.6.2007 requesting the 2nd respondent to grant building permission. After verifying the documents produced by the 6th respondent, the building permission was granted on 22.6.2007 in accordance with the Layout Rules. However in view of the objections raised by the residents of the colony on the ground that Plot No.106 was earmarked for the purpose of a common well, the building permission granted to the 6th respondent was kept in abeyance. Aggrieved by the same, the 6th respondent approached the 1st respondent and having considered the report received from the Divisional Panchayat Officer, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 15.12.2007 revoking the 2nd respondent’s order and directing to grant the building permission to the 6th respondent. Accordingly by order dated 18.2.2008 the building permission granted to the 6th respondent was restored. The 6th respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that though Plot Nos.106 & 107 were earmarked in the approved layout for common well and electric sub-station, having taken note of the fact that the electric sub-station was shifted to some other locality, the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, directed the 5th respondent society to allot Plot No.106 to the 6th respondent in lieu of Plot No.374 and accordingly the Rectification Deed, dated 18.5.2007 was executed in his favour. Subsequently, he was granted building permission by the Gram Panchayat on 22.6.2007. However, by order dated 28.6.2007, the said permission was kept in abeyance on a mistaken impression that the 6th respondent had wrongly shown Plot No.106 which was earmarked as common area. As the said order was passed without notice to him, the 6th respondent made a representation dated 6.9.2007 to the 1st respondent and after making the necessary enquiry, the 1st respondent by order dated 15.12.2007 revoked the 2nd respondent’s order dated 28.6.2007. Pursuant to the 1st respondent’s order dated 15.12.2007, the Gram Panchayat issued the building permission on 18.2.2008. Challenging the same, the petitioners approached the District Collector, R.R. District. After making the necessary enquiry, the District Collector, by order dated 30.04.2008 upheld the 1st respondent’s order, dated 15.12.2007 and instructed the 2nd respondent to permit the 6th respondent to make the construction and develop the remaining vacant plots as play ground. As the present writ petition has been filed suppressing the true facts, it is liable to be dismissed in limini. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while submitting that Plot No.106 which is earmarked as common area under the approved layout cannot be allotted for construction of a house, vehemently contended that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, had no jurisdiction to decide the question relating to title and at any rate it ought not to have issued directions for allotment of Plot No.106 contrary to law. It is further contended that since the transfer of Plot No.106 to the 6th respondent was illegal, he cannot be permitted to make any construction thereon. I do not find substance in any of the contentions advanced by the petitioner. The material available on record shows that Ac.1-30 guntas, out of the land purchased by the 5th respondent society was occupied and fenced by the Forest Department claiming that it belonged to the Department. The land so occupied by the Forest Department included Plot No.374 initially conveyed to the petitioner and other plots in the approved layout. In the circumstances, the 6th respondent’s request for allotment of alternative plot was considered by the 5th respondent society and accordingly a Rectification Deed dated 18.5.2007 was registered conveying Plot No.106 in lieu of Plot No.374. It is true that Plot No.106 was initially earmarked for electric sub-station as per the approved layout. However the electric sub- station was erected in Plot No.206 which was also earmarked as common area in the layout and thus Plot No.106 remained vacant. Having taken note of the said fact and taking into consideration that the society had no objection to allot Plot No.106 to the 6th respondent, who had paid the entire sale consideration long back, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by order dated 9.11.2005 directed the society to allot Plot No.106 to the 6th respondent in lieu of Plot No.374. The said order became final and the Rectification Deed, dated 18.5.2007 was executed by the society in favour of the 6th respondent. The contention of the petitioners that the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was without jurisdiction and that the Rectification Deed in favour of the 6th respondent was null and void is also without substance in view of the fact that consequent to the reduction of Ac.1-30 guntas of land in the total extent purchased by the society, the area earmarked in the layout for common purposes is bound to be reduced. The common areas in the layout were not transferred to the Gram Panchayat by the date of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Moreover, Plot No.106 remained vacant since the electric sub-station proposed to be constructed in the said plot was already located in Plot No.206. The report submitted by the Divisional Panchayat Officer, dated 6.12.2007 before the 1st respondent substantiated the fact that the electric sub- station was constructed in Plot Nos.206 & 207 and Plot No.106 was lying vacant. Hence the allotment of Plot No.106 to the 6th respondent cannot be held to be illegal on any ground whatsoever. Having considered all the said aspects, the 1st respondent had rightly revoked the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 28.6.2007 whereunder the building permission granted to the 6th respondent was kept in abeyance. It is also relevant to note that the impugned order dated 15.12.2007 passed by the 1st respondent was upheld by the District Collector, Rangareddy District, by order dated 30.04.2008 and the petitioners failed to question the same. The petitioners also failed to challenge the action of the 5th respondent in allotting Plot No.106 in favour of the 6th respondent or the registration of Rectification Deed. The petitioners could not even make out a case to show that the building permission granted in favour of the 6th respondent was not in accordance with the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 or the Layout Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 26.2.2002. Hence the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 21.10.2010 gbs