The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : G'P FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI P.KISHORE RAO The Gourt made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.3422 of 2o25 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: "...to pass on order or direction one in .nature of Writ of Mandamus declaing the action of the Respondent No.3 in rejecting the application dated 30.10.2O24 u.tith rekrence number 88 in respect of granting building permission to an ertefi of 193.95 Sq.mts. situated at Gramo Kantam land at Bachupally Village, Kanduhtr Mandal, Rango Reddg Distict. The meeting bg the Bochupallg Grama Sabha also the Memo No.6442/2017-81 (Pts) 1 dated 25.03.2023 oJ the Respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and ogainst the Principles of Nahral Justice and setaside the same bu a.tnsequentlg direct the Respondent No.2 artd .) L<t process the appllcation dated 30. 10.2024 of the petitioner with reference number 88 bg granting building permission to the petitioner for an extent of 193.95 Sq.mts. situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally Village, Konduhtr MondaL Ranga Reddy D[stict in accordance to latu and pass such other order or orders mctg deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and pass. .." 2, LearneC courrsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition 1S squarely covered by the order passed b1. this Court in W.P.No.3033 I of 2023 dated 18.07.2024 zmci the same is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for respondents No.1, learned Government Pleader for Revenue \ appearing for respondent No.2 a-I1d Sri P. Kishore Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for respondent No.3 2 i.

3. In view of the said submissions and for the reasons assigned by this Court in W.P.No.3033 1 of 2023 dated 18.07.2024, this Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the rmpugned order and the respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to process the application irled by the petitioner dated 3O.1O.2O24 for grant ol building permission in respect of the subject plot i.e., 193.95 sq.mts. situated at Grama Kantam Land at Bachupally Vil1age, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in accordance with lau', within tr.vo (21 rnonths from the date of receipL of a copi' of thi:s order. No order as lo cosis.

4. Registrl,' is rlirected to annex a cop)' of ttre order, datecl

18.O7.2021 in W.P.No.3033 I of 2023 along u'ith this order. Miscellaneous applical.ions, if any, pendirrg in this writ petition, shal1 stanci ciosed //rRUE coPY// A, \ SD/- P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA AFSISTANT REGISTRAR i Iu sEcrloN oFFlcER \t To

1. The Principal Secretary, (Panchayat Raj DepartrVnt), Secietariat Buildings State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 3. The Secretary, Bachupally Grama Panchayat, Bachupally, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPN/ENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to SRI V.ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI P.KISHORE RAO, Advocate (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies (Along with the Copy of Court Order dt:'18/07/2024 in W.P.No. 30331 of 2023) SA GJP I I i HIGH COURT DATED:0610212025 ORDER WP.No.3422 of 2025 k q J o 1 € 5r4 r(- 0 2 l'1AY 2025 t D€spar r,r90 t ( ( a ( ALLOWING THE W.P I wrHour cosrs. /.4 la/*/zs Page I of 7 SK,J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.3O331 OF 2o23 ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.3 in rejecting the application dated 16.08.2023 filed for the petitioner for grant of permission for construction of the building IN ATI extent of 102.5 Sq.Yards situated in Grama Kantam Land in Bachupally village of Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and requested to direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to grant building permission to the petitioner in respect of the subject plot.

2. Heard the Iearned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and the learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayats appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is the owner and possessor Grama Kantam land to extent of 102.5 Sq.Yards situated at Bachupalli village, of Kandkur Mandal :,1r,.. -tlr:. L'age 2 of 7 SIT,J Ranga Reddy District having acquired the sarne through a Gift Settlement Deed dated 08.08.2023 executed by her mother-in-1aw. The petitioner with a view to construct a building in the said plot frled online application on 16.08.2023 and the same was rejected by the respondent No.3 on the ground that in view of the resolution passed by the Grama Sabha Meeting held on 26.06.2021, wherein it was resolved that not to give any building permissions in respect of Grama Kantam Lands and open spaces in the village

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that some of the similarlv situated persons, who are also in possession of the part of Grama Kantam land of Bachupally village, hled W.P.No.392 of 2008 and the same was allowed on

31.03.2016. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.3 preferred the Writ Appeal No.784 of 2018 and the same was dismissed on O1.OB_2022, wherein it was held that Grama Kantam land is not a Government land and is a-lso not vested in Grama { Paachayat and therefore rejecting application f,rled by the petitioner dated 16.O8.2023 seeking building Page 3 oI 7 SK,J permission in respect of the subject plot, which is also a Grama Kantam land is arbitrary and illegal and requested to set aside the impugned order and to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to process the application filed by the petitioner for grant of building permlsslon.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat basing on the counter hled by the respondent No.3 would submit that as a matter of a fact the Iand in question ls rn dispute among the villagers as for the last 13 the Members of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Youth Association are trying to protect the land of Grama Kantam Land to an extent of Ac.6.15 guntas. Further, the impugned order was passed basing resolution passed by the respondent No.3 on 26.06.202I, and there are no merits in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition. I'age 4 of 7 SKJ

6. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the subject plot to an extent of 102.5 Sq.Yards having acquired through Gift settlement deed from her rirother-in-Iaw dated 08.08.2023. The grievance of the petitioner is that the online application filed by the petitioner on

16.08.2023 for building permission was rejected on the ground that Bachupally Gram Panchayat passed resolution on 26.06.2021 not to give any house permission in Grama Kantam Land of Ac.6.15 Elrntas and open spaces in the villages

7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that some of the villagers, wl-ro are ln possession of part of Grama Kantam land in Bachupally, have filed writ petition W.P.No.392/20O8 questioning the proceedings dated

04.01.2008 of the respondent No.3 as well as the respondent No. I and 2 therein directing demolition of structures erected by the petitioners therein were set SK,J aside on the ground that the Grama Kantam land is not a Government land and is also not vested in Gram panchayat and restrained the respondents from interfering with the structures erected by the petitioners therein in any manner. Further, being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.3 carried the matter in appeal vide W.A.No.Zg4 of 20lg and the same was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on O1.O8.2O22 and held that the Grama Kantam land is not a Government land and the Judgment in Vunnam Bangarraju Vs. Goaerttment of And.hra Prad.esht is settled law.

8. In Vunnam Bangarraju Vs. Gooernment of Andhra Pradesh (xtpra) this Court held that: *9. Grama Kantam Land is not a Gouernment Land- and. there is no prohibition to undertake transactions on *Le said. lands. In foct, Gramakantam desciljes the area id.entified. for the purpose of construction of resid.enttal houses and. incid.ental structures in uillage. It is neither a gouentment land nor land uested in the uillage pancLwgats. Xxx L 2014 l3l ALD 443 SK,J

12. No stature prouisos is brought to mg notice tuhich prohibit sale property standing in the name of o particular person, txhich is clossified in the reuenue records os Grama kantam....."

9. The subject plot of the petitioner is also in situated in Grama Kantam land of Bachup:rlly Village having acquired through gift settlement deed executed by her mother-in-law. Further some of the villagers have already constructed houses in the Grama Kantam land of Bahcupally village and living therein The respondents cannot deny permission for construction of house over the subject plot on the ground that it is a Grama Kantam land.

10. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed and impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 is set aside, by directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to process the application frled by the petitioner dated

16.08.2023 for granting of building permission in respect of the subject plot i.e. lO2 Sq.yards situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupalli village of Kandukur Mandal of Ranga Reddy District in accordance with Pdge 7 of 7 SK,J law, within two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 1 1. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall also stand closed. No order as to costs. Date:L8.O7.2024 JUSTICE K.SARATH