The Court made the following Order:

R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

Heard Sri K. S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6.

2. The petitioners herein have approached this Court, being aggrieved by the construction of a place of worship by respondent No.6 in Maanchala Village, Mantralayam Mandal, Kurnool District. The primary contention of the petitioners is that the construction of the place of worship is illegal, inasmuch as necessary permissions from the District Collector, for construction of place of worship had not been obtained and that the said construction was being done without any permission being obtained by the local body and in an area which has been set aside as open space in a layout made in the course of construction of house plots to weaker sections of society.

3. The official respondents as well as respondent No.6 have filed their counter affidavits.

4. The sum and substance of the submissions in these counter affidavits show that there was a pre-existing place of worship, which had fallen into disrepair and had dilapidated due to which a fresh construction was being taken up. Respondent No.6 would contend that this place of worship had been in existence since 1982. The official respondents, however, did not fix any date of existence, but reported that there was some place of worship available in the site.

5. Respondent No.6 would also contend that he had sought building permission from the Gram Panchayat and also approval from the Collector in terms of the proviso to Rule 26 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules, 2002. He would also contend that the construction of the building had been stopped in view of the interim orders issued by this Court on 05.05.2022.

6. A perusal of the pleadings as well as the material placed before this Court would reveal two facts – Firstly, no building permission has been given by the local bodies nor has the necessary approval, under the provisions of Rule 26 (2) of the said Rules, has been obtained. Further, respondent No.6 claims title over the property, by way of possession and not on account of any document of alienation, given in favour of respondent No.6 or Church of South India, which is said to be supervising this place of worship.

7. The provision under the Rules is as follows:

“No site shall be used for the construction of a building intended for public worship or religious purposes without the prior approval of the Collector of the District who may refuse such approval if, in his opinion, the use of the site for the proposed construction of the building is likely to endanger public peace and order, after giving an opportunity to the applicant to show cause against such refusal.”

8. This provision requires prior permission to be obtained from the District Collector before any construction can be taken up. Such prior permission has not been obtained before construction had been taken up in the disputed site.

9. The local body, within which the disputed site falls is Manchala Gram Panchayat. Section 121 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 stipulates that no building can be constructed or re-constructed and no addition or alteration shall be made to an existing building without the permission of the Gram Panchayat granted in accordance with the provisions of any Rules or bye-laws made under this Act. This permission is also not available in the present case. The Rules governing grant of such building permission are contained in the A.P. Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules, 2002. Rule 14 requires an application to be made for grant of permission to construct a building. Rule 16 stipulates that no site or parcel of land shall be used for building activity unless it is approved as building plot or forms part of an approved layout. In the present case, the official respondents have taken the stand th