Heard Sri T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner and Sri M. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel representing the 1st respondent.

2. Pesala Anudeep, being minor represented by his mother, Smt. P. Siva Rama Laxmi Kumari, filed the present Writ Petition praying for setting aside the proceedings in ROC No.53/2006, dated 8-10-2006 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and direct the 1st respondent to forthwith consider the application for building permission in accordance with the layout and Building Rules and pass such other suitable orders.

3. Sri Ramana Rao, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had pointed out to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and also the stand taken in the counter affidavit and would submit that merely because there is some dispute relating to the recovery of money, it cannot be taken as a dispute relating to the title to the property and in view of the same the very rejection of the building plan approval cannot be sustained.

4. On the contrary, Sri M. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel representing the 1st respondent would contend that on the strength of the legal opinion inasmuch as it was stated that the title is in controversy, the building permission was rightly rejected and hence the Writ Petition be dismissed.

5. The mother of the petitioner had sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of H.No.4/159 and 160 by virtue of registered Gift Deed executed by the father-in-law of the petitioners mother on 15-3-2004. As the house was in a dilapidated condition, she applied for building permission in the Gram Panchayat, Pamuru on 8-6-2006 by registered post. However, the same was returned unserved with an endorsement that no such addressee of Executive Officer was present at Pamuru Gram Panchayat. Again she sent the building plan to the 1st respondent on 15-6-2006 by way of registered post, but the 151 respondent refused to receive the cover and the same was returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement that the 151 respondent refused to receive the same. Copy of the said cover with endorsement is filed along with the Writ Petition. Thereafter, the petitioners mother lodged a complaint with the Grievance Cell at the office of the District Collector, Ongole on 14-8-2006. Pursuant to her complaint, the District Panchayat Officer, by Memo in ROC No.2772/2006/A6, dated 25-8-2006 directed the 151 respondent to explain the reasons for refusing to receive the building plan submitted by the petitioners mother. The copy of the letter dated 25-8-2006 is also filed along with the Writ Petition. It is stated that thereafter the petitioners father went to the office of the 151 respondent and submitted the building plan on 23-8-2006 to the 1st respondent in the presence of office clerk and bill collector. In spite of the receipt of the building plan, the 1st respondent neither rejected nor approved the building plan submitted by her. It is also stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh framed A.P. Gram Panchayat Land Development (Lay-out and Building) Rules, 2002. Rule 14 of the said Rules deals with filing of applications for permission to construct building accompanying the site plan. Rule 26 of the said Rules stipulates that the executive authority may sanction the plan with or without modification or refuse the same within a period of 15 days in case of individual residential buildings. Rule 26 also stipulates that where no orders are communicated by the authority either sanctioning or refusing the permission, it shall be deemed to have been permitted the proposed permission and the owner may go ahead with the work. It is also stated that Section 2(12) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1984 states that the executive authority means Panchayat Secretary appointed to each Gram Panchayat. It is also further stated that the petitioner had not received any communica