IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 477 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 05/03/2009 in WP NO : 4511 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 M.Lakshmamma W/o.M.Sankaraiah R/o.7-1-215, New Prem Nagar,Mahabubnagar Town Mahabubnagar Mandal & District 2 J.Sulochana W/o.J,Anjaneyulu R/o.7-1-215, New Prem Nagar,Mahabubnagar Town Mahabubnagar Mandal & District ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District Mahabubnagar. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Mahabubnagar District 3 The Yenugonda Gram panchayat, rep.by its Panchayat Secretary,Mahabubnagar Mandal & District 4 The Sarpanch, Yenogonda Gram panchayat Mahabubnagar District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: SRI S.LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 477 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This appeal is filed challenging the order, dated 5.3.2009 in W.P.No.4511 of 2009. The appellants herein are the writ petitioners. They filed the above writ petition seeking to declare the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings No.GP/2/2009, dated 19.2.2009, refusing to grant permission for construction of a house in their plot No.492 situated in Sy.No.160 of Yenugonda village, Mahabubnagar Mandal & District, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the 3rd respondent to grant permission to the petitioners for construction of the house in the plot in question, on the ground that they purchased the same through a sale deed dated 9.4.1992 and they submitted an application dated 5.2.2009 to the Grampanchayat, Yenugonda with a request to accord permission to construct a building in their plot but the 3rd respondent refused to grant permission stating that the plot in question is found to be road in an approved lay out. The learned single Judge having observed that this Court would have considered the feasibility of examining the legality or otherwise of the impugned letter, but for the fact that the petitioners had an alternative effective remedy by way of an appeal under Section 128 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the appellate authority would be in a better position to examine the matter and the petitioners can avail the same, disposed of the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Having aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that when the matter has come for admission, in the interest of both the parties, we have directed the counsel on record to inspect the land in question and conduct a survey with the assistance of Panchayat Secretary and staff and with the help of necessary documents and to file a report. Accordingly, they conducted survey and filed a report before this Court. Both the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development and the learned Standing Counsel for ZPPs & MPPs while disputing the existence of plot in question, contended that the disputed plot falls in 200 feet wide Master Plan Road and therefore, no permission can be granted to construct the house in the plot in question. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the appellants purchased the plot in question from one M. Srinivasa Rao, who had purchased the same from NGO’s Co- operative Housing Building Society Limited and that there is a revised lay out plan, wherein the disputed plot is shown as plot No.492. In view of the rival contentions raised by both the Counsel as to the existence of the plot in question and in view of the observations made in the report, we feel that the assertion or denial of the existence of the plot in question is a fact in issue, which can be resolved by the civil suit after a full-fledged trial. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondents are going to proceed with the road widening work in the plot in question and if they are allowed to do so, the appellants will be subjected to hardship. In this view of the matter and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to protect the interest of the appellants, we make it clear that the respondents shall not construct the road in the disputed site for a period of three months. Meanwhile, the appellants shall avail the remedies open to them under law. Subject to the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar Dated: 28th April, 2009 Nn THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO :477 of 2009 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) 28th April, 2009