THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2756 of 2011 Date:10.03.2011 Between: V.Chandrika ..... Petitioner AND The Gram Panchayat, Kuntloor Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, rep.by its Panchayat Secretary. .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.Rohit Ram Counsel for Respondent : Sri P.Raghavender Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in interfering with the construction made by the petitioner in Survey Nos.1 and 12 admeasuring 260 sq.yards or 217.83 sq.mtrs., of Kalvancha Revenue Village, Kuntloor Gram Panchayat, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the above-mentioned land. According to her, she has submitted an application on 06.05.2010, along with a map, seeking permission for construction of a building, that the respondent acknowledged the said application on 07.05.2010 and that on the intimation given by the office of the respondent, she paid Rs.15,233/- towards permission fee. As no further communication was received from the respondent, by virtue of the deemed permission, as envisaged in the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 127 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), she has commenced construction from 03.12.2010. Her grievance is that the respondent has been interfering with her possession of the land. This Court by order, dated 09.02.2011, while ordering notice, directed the respondent not to interfere with the petitioner’s construction of building, so long as the same is strictly in accordance with the plan submitted by her to the respondent. In the counter affidavit filed by the Panchyat Secretary of the respondent-Gram Panchayat, it is inter alia stated that in W.P.No.29602 of 1998, which was filed as a piece of public interest litigation by one T.N.Rao, a Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of the said writ petition by order, dated 30.08.1999, directed the respondent to take appropriate steps to protect the common land in Survey Nos.1 and 12 of Kuntloor Gram Panchayat and ensure its clearance from the encroachers. The respondent pleaded that in respect of a part of the said land, the petitioner is carrying on construction. As regards the purported application filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the then Panchayat Secretary has received an application without enclosures and that no address and plot number were mentioned in the said application. The counter affidavit has denied any intimation given by the respondent for payment of the permission fee of Rs.15,233/- and that the petitioner has paid the said amount through challan in the bank and the said challan has not been submitted to the respondent till today. It is further stated that as the application does not contain any address or phone number of the applicant, no written communication could be sent to the petitioner and that when the petitioner’s husband has approached the respondent’s office, he refused to take return of the application submitted by the petitioner. That ultimately, notice, dated 29.06.2010, was served on Mr.S.Rohit Reddy, who is the site supervisor. The respondent has accused the petitioner of suppressing of above material facts. It is maintained that as the petitioner failed to comply with the required procedure in filing the application and the land over which the construction is being made is part of Survey Nos.1 and 12, in respect of which, there is a writ of mandamus, the petitioner cannot be permitted to construct the building. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner would show that the same is not in prescribed proforma. Moreover, the application does not show that any enclosures were made to it, such as, proposed plan and the documents of title. A copy of the order in W.P.No.29602 of 1998 filed by the respondent would show that this Court has directed the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to protect the common land in Survey Nos.1 and 12 of Kuntloor Gram Panchayat and ensure clearance of the same from encroachers. If the petitioner is in occupation of the common land in the said survey numbers, the respondent cannot permit her to raise construction, unless her right over the land is declared by a competent Court of law. In the light of these facts, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 127 of the Act. As the petitioner failed to submit her application in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act, the respondent cannot be restrained by way of mandamus from interfering with her construction. However, the petitioner is given liberty to file her application in proper proforma, along with the required enclosures, including the plan and the document of title before the respondent. If the respondent receives such an application, it shall pass appropriate orders within one month from the date of receipt of the same and communicate its decision to the petitioner. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by such decision, she is entitled to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Till this exercise is completed, the petitioner shall not proceed with the construction. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 09.02.2011, granted by this Court, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.3404 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.936 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th March, 2011 VGB