THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION Nos. 31413 OF 2018,14588 AND 14608 OF 2023,

COMMON ORDER:

Since, the subject matter in all three writ petition is common and the petitioners in all the three writ petitions are questioning the inaction of the respondent No.2-Gram Panchayat in not issuing the layout permission, despite the draft layout permission sanctioned by the respondent No.3-HMDA. In view of the same, all the three writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by way of common order and W.P.No.31413 of 2018 is taken as leading case.

2. Heard Sri Vimal Varma Vasi Reddy and Sri Rohit Pogula learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Sri R.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Sri V.Narsimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.31413 of 2018 submits that the petitioner-firm and others made an application on 13.12.2017 to the respondent No.3 to grant layout permission for residential purpose in Survey No.271 Part (271/AA, 271/E) of Bhanoor Village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Sangareddy District, and the application was processed by the authorities and reported for approval. Later, on enquiry the petitioner came to know that some of the unconnected persons filed a complaint that the subject land is already made into plots and not to allot the layout. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a letter on 08.03.2018 to the respondent No.3 to inspect personally and grant permission as the petitioner has not sold any land in this survey and not made layout earlier.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.3, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8821 of 2018 before this Court and this Court disposed of by an order dated 03.04.2018 directing the respondents therein to taken decision on petitioner’s application dated 13.12.2017 within three weeks. Complying the said orders passed by this Court, the respondent No.3 issued a draft layout on 25.07.2018 and forwarded the same to the respondent No.2 for a formal counter signature and the respondent No.2 without doing so, orally informed that the respondent No.2 is receiving complaints and will enquire for making the counter signature on the draft layout issued by the respondent No.3.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent-Gram Panchayat without having jurisdiction, sit over the draft layout granted by the competent authority- respondent No.3. It is the duty of the respondent No.2 to see whether the petitioner has complied the conditions laid down in the approved layout or not and if complied, the respondent No.2 has to pass provisional permission orders. The respondent No.2 has no power or authority to seek clarification or to cancel the draft approved layout basing on the third party claims. The competent authority i.e., the Revenue authorities after verifying the title and ownership of the petitioner, granted NALA conversion and after conducting verification of documents, the respondent No.3 approved draft layout in favour of the petitioner. Without any jurisdiction and power, the respondent No.2 cannot sit over on passing final permission orders on the ground that there is title dispute between the petitioner and third parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if there is any grievance between the petitioner and third parties, they have to approach competent Civil Court or appropriate authority for taking steps against the petitioner- firm and requested to allow this writ petition by directing the respondent No.2 to counter sign the draft approved layout sanctioned by the respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner-firm in the subject property.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment in Mir Asad Sayeed Khan and Others V.State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others, [2021 SCC Online TS 1917]

8. Learn