IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21041 of 2006 Between: C. Anantha Reddy … Petitioner And The District Panchayat Officer, Medak District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K. Laxmaiah Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21041 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash proceedings dated 12.07.2006 of respondent No.2 as confirmed by respondent No.1 by order dated 21.09.2006 in appeal. I have heard Sri K. Laxmaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. At the hearing, there is no representation for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appeared for respondent No.1. The dispute pertains to an open space measuring 31’ x 56’ (1736 square feet or 192 square yards) lying adjacent to house No.1-33. While the petitioner claims that in a partition between him and respondent No.3, the said open area fell to his share, it is the case of respondent No.3 that he is the exclusive owner of house No.1-33 and also the said vacant site. Respondent No.3 has applied to respondent No.2 for grant of permission for construction of a house. The executive officer of respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 12.07.2006 granted the permit. Condition No.7 of the permit shows that the said permit was granted in pursuance of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat passed on 11.07.2006. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the executive authority of respondent No.2 having been dismissed, the petitioner availed the remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act”) before respondent No.1. The petitioner pleaded that as a civil suit filed by him for declaration of his title is pending, there was no justification in granting permission to respondent No.3 for construction of a house. Respondent No.1 considered the pleas of the petitioner and observed in his order that he has conducted spot inspection on 21.09.2006 in the presence of both the parties, that the revision records of house No.1-33 show that the same stands in the name of respondent No.3 and two other items of the property, namely; 33 yards (Kottam) and another area of 31’ x 56’ (1736 square feet or 192 square yards) were also entered in the record. Respondent No.1 further observed that the appellant has failed to adduce any documentary evidence in support of his claim that he is the owner of the property. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when a suit is pending, it is not appropriate for respondent No.2 to grant building permission to respondent No.3. In my opinion, mere pendency of the civil suit would not have the effect of deterring the authority concerned from exercising its statutory function. Under the Act, it is the statutory obligation of the Gram Panchayat to consider the application of a party for grant of permission for construction of a house. The permission is granted on the prima facie satisfaction of the authority that the applicant is the owner and is in lawful occupation of the property. The Gram Panchayat or the hierarchical authorities under the Act are not expected to decide the disputed questions of title. As noted above, respondent No.1 has examined the issue de novo and was satisfied that the property in respect of which building permission was granted in favour of respondent No.3 stands in his name. Unless the petitioner is able to establish before the civil Court that he is the lawful owner of the property, the decision of respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot be found fault with. The permit having been given on the prima facie satisfaction of the authorities that respondent No.3 is the lawful owner thereof, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said decision. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is needless to observe that granting of permit in favour of respondent No.3 shall be subject to the result of the suit filed by the petitioner and pending before the competent Court. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.26696 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.08.2010. ES