Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 331
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SARATH, J.
Thakur Balarani Bai – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No.35259 of 2023 & Writ Petition No.5795 of 2023
Decided on : 03-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, Learned Counsel
For the Respondents: Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Sri P.Kishore Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat
IMPORTANT POINT
The majority decision of the Gram Panchayat prevails over individual objections, as per the provisions of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act.
Headnote:
Construction - Writ Petitions - Telangana Panchayat Raj Act - Sections 46(3), 47(3) - The court upheld the validity of construction permissions granted by the Collector, emphasizing the majority decision of the Gram Panchayat and the procedural adherence under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a Sarpanch and a Ward Member, challenged the Collector's order granting construction permission to certain respondents, claiming it was illegal due to prior resolutions against the construction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Collector acted within his powers under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, as the majority of the Gram Panchayat members supported the construction, despite the petitioners' opposition.
Issues: Whether the Collector had the authority to grant construction permission despite the petitioners' objections and the prior resolution against the construction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the refusal of the Sarpanch to sign the resolution did not invalidate the majority decision of the Gram Panchayat, allowing the Collector to proceed with granting permission.
Result: Both Writ Petitions are dismissed for lack of merit.
ORDER :
K.SARATH, J.
The subject property and the parties involved in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same. Therefore, both the petitions are taken up for hearing and being disposed of by way of this common order by taking Writ Petition No.35259 of 2023 as leading case.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and Sri P.Kishore Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for the respondents and perused the entire material on record.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner in W.P.No.35259 of 2023 is Sarpanch for Pedadevulapally, Tripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda District and the petitioner in W.P.No.5795 of 2023 is a Ward Member to the Gram Panchayat of Peddadevulapally Village. Both the petitioners filed these writ petitions questioning the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.4 for granting construction permission to the respondent Nos.10 and 11. In view of the same, both the writ petitions are disposed of by way of passing common order.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent Nos.10 and 11 started illegal construction due to which the Gram Panchayat of Pedadevulapalli conducted the Gram Panchayat meeting and passed resolution on 28.05.2022 and directed respondent Nos.4 to 8 to take necessary action against the illegal construction made by respondent Nos.10 and 11. Without considering the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, the respondent No.4 issued Impugned Memo No.1863/2023/B3(Pts), dated 12.12.2023 and directed the respondent No.8 to take appropriate steps to grant permission to the respondent Nos.10 and 11 in spite of pendency of resolution of Gram Panchayat and the same is arbitrary and illegal. The respondent No.4 has no power and jurisdiction to pass impugned proceedings and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development submits that as per Section 46 (3) and 47 (3) of TPRA, 2018, the respondent No.4 rightly passed impugned orders as majority of the ward members have voted to issue construction permission to the respondent Nos.10 and 11. The Gram Panchayat General Body Meeting was conducted on 25.05.2023, wherein out of total 12 Ward Members, 11 Ward Members were present and 9 Ward Members have agreed to issue permission, but, 2 Ward Members and the Sarpanch have opposed it and the Sarpanch refused to sign on the resolutions. In view of non resolution of the Gram Panchayat, the matter was referred to the respondent No.4 and a hearing was conducted on 03.10.2023 in the Chambers of the Additional Collector (Local Bodies), Nalgonda, in the presence of Mandal Panchayat Officer, Tripiraram, Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Peddadevulapally and Y.Krishna Rao, Site Head, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited, Peddadevulapally.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development further submits that as per Section 46 (3) and 47 (3) of Telanagana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, out of 12 Ward Members, 9 Ward Members of the Gram Panchayat, Peddadevulapally of Tripuraram Mandal have voted to issue construction permission to the respondent Nos.10 and 11 as per G.O.Ms.No.67, PR&RD (Pt's.-IV) Department, dated 26. 02.2022 and G.O.Ms.No.131, MA & UD (Plg.III) Department, dated 31.08.2020 and as per the rules in force on 25.05.2023. There is no irregularity in passing of impugned orders by the respondent No.4 and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition.
7. After hearing both sides and perusing the records, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner in W.P.No.35259 of 2023 is a Sarpanch and W.P.No.5795 of 2023 is a Ward Member of Peddadevulapally, Tripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda District. The respondent Nos.10 and 11 made a
