The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the application, dated 24.09. 2024 of the petitioner with reference number 66 by granting building permission to the petitioner for an extent o'f 2O7. 32 Sq. mts, situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Counsel for the Counsel for the Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Respondent No.1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE Respondent No.3: SRt MULLANGI RAMI REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYATH W.P.NO: 32206OF 2024 Between: Tatireddy Dhanraj Reddy, S/o Marreddy, Aged about 68 -years, Occ' Farmer, - No.2-13212, B-achupalli Village, Kandukuru Mandal, Rangareddy Rt/o. H. ReddY District ...PETrroNER AND Department), Secratriat Buildings Hyderabad, 1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Panchayat Raj 2. Tha District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 3. The Bachupally Grama Panchayat, Bachupally, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Rep by its Secretary. ...RES'ONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in rejecting the application daled 161l012024 with reference nurnber 64 in respect of granting building permission to an extent of 211.50 Sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in view of Resolution, passed in the meeting by the Bachupally Grama Sabha also th€ Merno No. 6442 I 2O17-Bl (Pts)-'l dated 2510312023 of the Respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and against the Principles of Natural Justice and setaside the same by consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the application, dated 16/10/2O24 oI the petitioner with reference number 64 by granting building permission to the petitioner for an extent of 211.5O Sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in accordance to law. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the application, daled 2410912024 of the petitioner with reference number 64 by granting building permission to the petitioner for an extent o1 211.50 Sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI MULLANGI RAMI REDDY' SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYATH w.P .NO: 32208 OF 2024 Between: Tatireddv Alohonse Reddv, S/o T Maneddy, aged about 44 years, Occ Farmer,'Fl/o. H.No. 1 -33. Bbchupalli Village, Kandukuru Mandal' Rangareooy Reddy District. ...'ET'T'ONER AND Department), Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad.

1. The State ofTelangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary (Panchayat Raj 2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 3. The Bachupally Grama Panchayat, Bachupally, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' Rep by its secretary' ...RES..NDENT' Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 3 in rejecting the application dated 24.09.2024 with reference number 63 in respect of granting building permission to an extent of 212. 34 Sq. mts, situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in view of Resolution, in the meeting by the Bachupally Grama Sabha also the Memo No. 6442 I 2017- Bl (Pts)- 1 dated 25. 03.2023 of the Respondent No. 2 as illegal, arbitrary and against the Principles of Natural Justice and set aside the same by consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the application, dated 24. 09. 2024 of the petitioner with reference number 63 by granting building permission to the petitioner for an extent of 212. 34 Sq. mts, situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in accordance to law and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the apptication, dated 24.09. 2024 of the petitioner with reference number 63 by granting building permission to the petitioner for an extent of 212.34 Sq. mts, situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in, the circumstances of the case. pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Counsel for the Counsel for the Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Respondent No.1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE Respondent No.3: SRI MULLANGI RAMI REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYATH W.P.NO: 32210 OF 2024 Between: T Ranadeer Reddy, S/o George Reddy, aged about 44 years, Occ. Farmer, Fl/o. H. No.1-33, Bachupalli Village, Kandukuru Mandal, Rangareddy Reddy District' ...PETrroNER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary (Panchayat Raj Department), Secratrait Buildings Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 3. The Bachupally Grama Panchayat, Eachupally, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' Rep by its secretary' ...RE''.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the af{idavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in rejecting the application dated 2410912024 with reference number 65 in respect of granting building permission to an exteflt of 200.60 Sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in view of Resolution, passed in the rneeting by the Bachupally Grama Sabha also the Memo No. 6442 I 2017-81 (Pts)-1 dated 2510312023 of the Respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitary and against the Principles of Natural Justice and setaside the same by consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the application , dated 241O912024 of the petitioner with reference number 65 by granting building permission to the petitioner for an extent of 200.60 Sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in accordance to law. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the application , dated 2410912024 of the petitioner with reference number 65 by granting building permission to the petitioner for an extent of 200.60 Sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI MULLANGI RAMI REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYATH W.P.NO: 32211 OF 2024 Between: Thatireddy.Anil_Kumar,_S/o T lnna Reddy, aged about 32years, Occ. Farmer, a/o, . H:. N9,.1-123/'l , Bachupalli Villag6, Kandukuru M-andal, Rangareddy Reddy District. AND ...PETITIONER Department), Secratrait Buildings Hyderabad. '1 . The State of T-elangana,Eep by its Principal Secretary (panchayat Raj 2. The District Collector, Ranqa Reddy District. Hvderabad. 3. The. Bachupally_Grama Panchayat,-Bachupally, Ks66ukrr. Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Rep by its Secretary. ,..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in rejecting the apptication dated 30.10.2024 with reference number 77 in respect of granting building permission to an extent of 217 Sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam tand at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District I view of Resolution passed in the meeting by the bachupally grama sabha also the Memo No. 6442 t 2O17-Bi (pts)-1 dated 25 -o3.2o23 of the Respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of Natural Justice and setaside the same by consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the apptication, dated 30.10.2024 of the petitioner with reference number 77 by granting buirding permission to the petitioner for an extent of 217 sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam rand at Bachupaly Viflage, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in accordance to law. 1A NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the application datd 3ot1ot2o24 of lhe petitioner with reference number 77 by g'ranting building permission to the petitioner for an extent of 217 sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposar of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt V.ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI MULLANGI RAMI REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYATH w P.NO:32221 OF 2024 Between: Tatireddy.lnna !9!dy,^S/9 Joji Reddy, aged about 61 years, Occ. Farmer, Vo,.H_ No.1-12311, Bachupaili Viildge,-Kanduturu ManOii, ni'ngarddy Reddy District. AND ...PETITIONER

1. The State of T^elangana,Rep.by its principal Secretary (panchayat Raj - 9epa_rtment), Secratrait Buildings Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, Ranga ReOOy District, Hvderabad. 3. The. Bachupally Grama Panchayat,-Bachupally, Kandukur MaMal, Ranga Reddy District, Rep by its Secretary ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in rejecting the apptication datd a0.1o.2024 with reference number 78 in respect of granting building permission to an extent of 217.00 Sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The meeting by the Bachupally Grama Sabha also the Memo No. 6442 12017-81 (Pts)-1 dated 25.03.2023 of the Respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and against the Principles of Natural Justice and setaside the same by consequently direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to process the application, dated 30.10.2024 of the petitioner with reference number 78 by granting building permission to the petitioner for an extent of 217.00 Sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in accordance to law and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the application. dated 3011O12024 of the petitioner with reference number 78 by granting building permission to the petitioner for an extent ol 217.00 Sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.I: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI MULLANGI RAMI REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYATH W.P.NO: 32320 OF 2024 Between: Tatireddy Bala Supriya, D/o. T. Prakash Reddy, aged about 29 years, Occ. House Wife, R|/o. H. No. 1-13, Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. AND ...PETITIONER Department), Secretariat Buildinos Hvderibad.

1. The State of T^elangana, Rep by its principal Secretary (panchayat Raj 2. The District Collector, Ranga Re-ddy bistrict. Hvderabad. 3. The. Bachupally_Grama.Panchayat,-Bachupally, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Rep by its Secretary. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in rejecting the application dated 3o110t2024 with reference number 90 in respect of granting building permission to an extent of 193.95 Sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The meeting by the Bachupally Grama Sabha also the Memo No. 6442 12017-81 (Pts)-'t dated 2SlO3t2OZ3 of the Respondent M.2 as illegal, arbitrary and against the Principles of Natural Justice and setaside the same by consequently direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to process the application, dated 30-10.2024 of the petitioner with reference number g0 by granting building permission to the petitioner for an extent of 193.95 Sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in accordance to law and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO | 1OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstanc-es stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High court may be pleased lt is also just and necessary that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dkect the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the application, dated 30..10.2024 of tE petitioner with reference number 90 by granting building permission to the petitioner for an extent of 193.95 Sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SR! V.ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY counser for the Respondent No.l: cp FoR par.rdiilivar RAJ & RURAL DEV Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Gp FOR neVEtfile counser for the Respondent No.3: sRl MULLANGi narvrr neoov, sc FoR GRAM PANCHAYATH W.P.NO: 32323o F 2024 Between: Ei,.Hs,..lf, ,.iii:Tll,*ilfr i,'1";;ilfr'J,',rT,',,f,?6,,fl :fl #o*"#,|'iX"ro",i,.hgf; Reddy District. AND ...PET|TIONER

1. The State of Telanoana,Rep.by its principal Secretary (panchayat Raj ^ gepqrtmentl, secritraii'e uira i"6d'ni^jliil5"ir]" 3I[:B:1ili1,3,?,ra*Hgt!ffi l:,?itill,r,,,*;:53[,,r'r"naan"ns, Reddy District,'Rep ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of India praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction one in nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the Respondent No.3 in rejecting the apprication dated 30.10.2024 with reference number 86 in respect of granting buirding permission to an extent of 100-00 sq-mts, situated at Grama Kantam rand at Bachupaly Virage, Kandukur Mandar' Ranga Reddy Diskict. The meeting by the Bachupary Grama Sabha arso the Memo No. 6442 I 2O1T-B,, (pts)_1 dated 25.0J.2O23 of the Respondent No.2 as illegar' arbitrary and against the principres of Naturar Justice and setaside the same by consequentty direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the apptication, dated 30.10.2024 of the petitioner with reference number g6 by granting building permission to the petitioner for an extent of 100.00 sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam rand at Bachupary Virage, Kandukur Mandar, Ranga Reddy District in accordance to law. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the apprication, dated 30.10.2024 0r the petitioner with reference number g6 by granting buirding permission to the petitioner for an extent of 1oo.oo sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam rand at Bachupally Viltage, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY counser for the Respondent No.i: Gp FoR paNiirinver RAJ & RURAL DEv Counsel for the Respondent No.2: cp FOR neViNLe Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI MULLANGi-iauf neoov, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYATH W.P.NO:323240F 2024 Between: Bl#,';"if,yil,:S:',*.Yfl #fl :igi6ff ,,,ffi :ti%yffi AND rs,R/oHNo-,-10l1, ...PETITIONER

1. The State of Telanoana,Rep.by its principal Secretary, (panchayat Raj 2 The District Coilector, nanga R6d'dyb-isinJiivoeraOaO t pe pqrtm e nt), Secritra it'B uirS i n6 j. H ri t''e' "' "IJu"ja" -xi ii;iu r r,n a na a t' Ra nsa i'i" ri vl H:&"3i.1*Sllh""r gf E*:,1',: " ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction one in nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the Respondent No.3 in rejecting the apprication dated 3or1ot2o24 with reference number 84 in respect of granting buirding permission to an extent of 234'00 sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam rand at Bachupaily Viilage, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Memo No. 6442 r 2017-81 (pts)-1 dated 25ro3r2023 0f the Respondent No.2 as iilegar, arbitrary and against the principres of Naturar Justice and setaside the same by consequentry direct the Respondent No 2 and 3 to process the apprication, dated 30/10/2024 of the petitioner with reference number 84 by granting buirding permission to the petitioner for an extent of 234.OO Sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam rand at Bachupafly viflage, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in accordance to law. lA NO:'t OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the apprication, dated 30t10t2024 of the petitioner with reference number g4. by granting buirding permission to the petitioner for an extent of 234.00 sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam rand at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt V.ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY counser for the Respondent No.1: Gp FoR pnlCtiaver RAJ & RURAL DEv Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Gp FOR ngVElrffug Counset for the Respondent No.3: SRt MULLANGi mn|f neOOy, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYATH W.P.NO:323 26 oF 2024 Between: Dodda Marreddy. S/o Paoi Redd.y, aged about 76 years, Occ Farmer, Rl/o H. No 1- 10/1 Baihupafly Viilage, k'dnttkuiMiii;i A;;, Reddy Disrrict. AND ...PETIT|oNER

1. The State of Telanoana,. Rep by its principal Secretary (panchayat Raj _ pepartment;, secr&ariat ei,lbiidi iyi;{6ii]' 2 The Districr Couector, Rqnga #-d;i bis:t'rililivoeraoao. ' I:: f"3?'1i :ll'-:r [f [Tj:'?'3[e;rilp; ivi -K; ij Jru r N't a no a t' Ra n g a ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction one in nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the Respondent No. 3 in rejecting the apprication dated 30. 10.2024 with reference number 8s in respect of granting buirding permission to an extent of 234' 08 Sq. mts, situated at Grama Kantam rand at Bachupaily viilage, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Memo No. 6442 t2017-81 (pts)- 1 dated 25. 03' 2023 of the Respondent No. 2 as ifiegar, arbitrary and against the principres of Naturar Justice and set aside the same by consequenfly direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the application, dated 30. 10.2024 of the petitioner with reference number 85 by granting building permission to the petitioner for an extent of 234' O8 Sq. rnts, situated at Gram Kantam rand at Bachupary virage, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in accordance to raw and pass such other order oi. orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 10F 2024 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stat€d the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the apprication, dated 30. 10.2024 0f the petitioner with reference number g5 by granting buirding permission to the petitioner for an extent of 234. oB sq. mts, situated at Grama Kantam rand at Bachuparry Viilage, Kandukur Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposar of the above writ petition and pass strch other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and pending disposar of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI V.ROOPESH KUMAR REODY Counset for the Respondent No.i: cp FoR iAN;iinvnr na.l & RURAL DEV Counset forthe Respondent No.2: cp FOR RE iNU; uounser for the Respondent No,3: sRr MULLANGT RAMr REDDY, sc FoR GRAM PANCHAYATH W,P.NO: 32338 0F 2024 Between: D Keerthi Kumar Reddy,-Dlo.Vrt-=-gOV, aged about 43 years, Occ. Farmer *" 1-1011, Bridchuparrv vi6",-ft"ri,iukur Mandat, Ransa Reddy Y,.,I: AND ...PET!T|oNER

1. The State of Telanoana,Rep.by its principal Secretary (panchayat Raj ^ pepqrtrnent), secrStrait'Buiriin6d' ni lii'"j6;""-' z. I he uistrict collector, Ranga Reddl District, Hyderabad. 3. rhe Bachupa,v G rama. pii;6;t;t'8";'fi ; r rvl"*Z no u r* Ma ndat, Ra nsa Reddy District,-Rep by its Secreiirv---"-rsii' '! '| \r .,.RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of tndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction one in nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the Respondent No.3 in rejecting the application dated sot1ot2o24 with reference number 96 in respect of granting buirding permission to an extent of 142.00 sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam rand at Bachupaily viilage, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.The meeting by the Bachupafly Grama sabha arso the Memo No. 6442 I 2017-81 (pts)-1 dated 2slo3t2o23 of the Respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of Natural Justice and setaside the same by consequentry direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to process the application, dated 30.10.2024 of the petitioner with reference number g6 by granting building permission to the petitioner for an extent of 142.00 sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam rand at Bachupafly Vifiage, Kandukur Mandar, Ranga Reddy District in accordance to raw and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section r51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the application, dated 30.10.2024 of the petitioner with reference number 96 by granting buirding permission to the petitioner for an extent of 142.00sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam land at Bachupally Vittage, Kandukur Mandat, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposat of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. pending disposar of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Gounsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FoR pANcHAyAT RAJ & RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRt MULLANGI RAMI REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYATH W.P.NO:3290 50F 2024 Between: Eiii_,',iE'.',FYSI.[H:&i] jFdlH,ff pJ,fl l"i,Xd#1,?li#i,,1ffi ; Qutubultapur, Rangareddy Reddy District. AND ...PETIT|ONER -- - 1 IP ^il{: _".{ 2. The District Collector, Ranga R6Ody Distrlci. XvOeraOaa. .*:fr"3?.ll:lr_"#gf uepanrnent), Secratrait Buildinos Hvderabad. rp]angg ng,jgp. by its.principat Secretary ( panchayat Raj ,I"Tslrxr€LeacnupiivlkiilJ[urMandar,Ranga ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction one in nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the Respondent No.3 in rejecting the apprication dared 02.11.2024 with reference number 103 in respect of granting buirding permission to an extent of 167.2o sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam rand at Bachupaily Viilage, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Memo No. 6442 t 2O1l-Bi (pts)-1 dated 25 03 -2023 of the Respondent No.2 as ifiegar, arbitrary and against the principres of Natural Justice and setaskJe the sarne by consequen y direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the apprication , dated o2.1'r.2024 of the petitioner with reference number 103 by granting building permission to the petitioner for an extent of 167.20 sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam rand at Bachupaly Viflage, Kandukur Mandar, Ranga Reddy District in accordance to law and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 1sl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to process the apprication, dared o2.11.2024 of the petitioner with reference number 't 03 by granting building permission to the petitioner for an extent of 167.2o sq.mts, situated at Grama Kantam rand at Bachupally Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.l: Gp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRt MULI-ANGI RAMI REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYATH The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADIIAVI DEVI qLP.t{OS. 32197, 3220,6, g22OA.322LO. 322LL,3,222L. 32320.32323.32324. 32326. 32338 and 329OS OF 2024 COMMON ORDER: In all these writ petitions, tl-e petitioners are challenging the order of rejection of their applications in respect of granting building permission in respect of land situated at Grama Kantam of Bachupally village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in view of the resolution passed by the Bachupally Grama Sabha and also the Memo No.6442l2Ol7-Bl(fts)-1, dated 25.03.2023 of the respondent No.2, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and to set aside the same ald consequently to direct the respondents No.2 ald 3 to process the applications of tl.e petitioners for granting building permissions ald to pass such other order or orders in the interest ofjustice.

2. The learned counsel for tlle petitioners submitted that this Court has been disposing of similar writ petitions by setting aside the impugned orders and 2 directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to process the applications filed by the petitioners for the grant of building permissions in respect of the land situated at Grama Kantam of Bachupally village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in accordance with law. The petitioners have sought similar relief in these writ petitions as well.

3. The learned Government Pleader, on merits of the case placed reliance upon the decision of tl.e Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.7O4 of 2022, dated

29.LO.2O22, wherein it has been held that the respondent No.3 therein i.e., Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice therein and that the petitioner therein was directed to approach the respondent No.3 to take a decision one way or the other in accordalce with law. F\:rther, he placed reliance upon the decisions of single judge of this Court in the case of Banne Gandhi and Others Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and 3 Othersr, and supported his proposition that under paras 2 and 3 to BSO 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders, village site, poramboke land (grama natham area/grama kantam land) always vests in tfre Government and is intended for being allotted as house sites in future. It is submitted that in W.P.No. 14460 of 2O2I, the learned single judge of this Court has referred to G.O.Ms.No.187, dated 27.O5.2O15 under which the Gramakantam land is deemed to have been vested in Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 53, unless notifrcation is issued under Section 58(2) of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, divesting the land from Gram Palchayat and vesting the sarne on the Government. Thus, according to the learned Government Pleader, Gramakantam land though is not vested in Gram Panchayat or in the Government, it is only tJle Government which can pass orders in respect of the said land and the petitioners i.e., individuals cannot claim right or title over the said land. It is furttrer submitted that the petitioners have been relying upon the decision of the r 2oo7 scc online AP t36 4 Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voonna Bangara.iu Vs. Government of Andhra Pradeshz' for the proposition that Gramakantam is not a Government land and tJlat there is no protribition to undertake transactions on the said lands, but the said decision is not applicable to the facts of these cases.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners' on the ottrer hand, submitted that this issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vooana Bangaraju (cited supral and further that the writ petitions are liled against the rejection of the applications frled by the petitioners for building perrnissions and therefore, the petitioners have individual grievances and therefore, they need not be clubbed with the PIL' He further submitted that this Court has been directing the respondents to Process the application for grant of building permission in accordance with law and therefore, there is no prejudice caused to the revenue by the said orders' It is submitted that tl.e government has not challenged any of 2 2or4 l3l N-D 441 5 the orders passed by this Court directing the respondents to process the applications and therefore, the said orders have remained unchallenged and have become final at this stage. He further placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voonna Bangaraju (cited supra), which has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.784 of 2018. Thus, he prayed that the impugned orders of rejection be set aside and the respondents be directed to process the applications of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court hnds that the decisions relied upon by the learned single judges in the earlier writ petitions and as well as the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.784 of 2O18 is that of the Division Bench of t]lis Court in the case of Voonna Bangaraju (cited supral, wherein it was held that the Gramakantam land is neither a Government land nor land vested in the ViIIage Panchayat. It has not been brought out tl.at the said order 6 has been challenged by the revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and tlterefore, it has become final. The decisions relied upon by the learned government pleader are both the decisions of the learned single judges and were passed without considering the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Vooana Bau;gatairu (cited supral. The decision in the case of Banne Gandhi and Othets (cited sttpral, is prior to the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vonna Bangaraju (cited supra), whlle the decision in W.P.No.1446O of 2O2l is passed without considering the said judgment. Further, in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.704 of 2022, the Hon'ble Division Bench was considering whether that the High Court can interfere at the stage of issuance of show cause notice and had directed the petitioner therein to the forum of respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 was directed to take a decision in one way or the other in accordance with law.

6. The Division Bench has further observed that the learned single judge in the said case had framed the 7 question for consideration as to the whether the writ petition filed against the issuance of show cause notice, should be entertained or not and therefore, the Court need not enter into the controversy as to whether the subject land is a Gramakantam larld or whether Gramakantam land does not vest with the Government or the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, this Court finds that the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Voonna BangaraJu (crted supral has neither been set aside, suspended nor distinguished by any of the decisions relied upon the learned government pleader. On the other hand, this Court has been re\ring upon the said decision to set aside the impugned orders and directing the respondents to reconsider the applications of the petitioners for building permissions in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to pass similar orders as in W.P.No.3OO42 of 2023 by setting aside the impugned orders and directs the respondents No.2 and 3 to process the applications filed by the petitioners for grant of building permission in respect of the subject plot situated at Grama Kantam land at I I I Bachupally village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in accordance with law within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Regtstry is directed to annex the copies of the order dated 13.08.2C24 in W.P.No.30042 of 2023 and also W.P.No.3033L of 2023, dated 18.07.2024 along with this order for ready reference. 7 . Accordingly, the writ petitions are alowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ilh---",-n=7 I I I The Principal Secretary (Panchayat Raj Department), Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. The Secretary, BachupallyGrama Panchayat, Bachupally, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. one-cc to sRl v.RooPESH KUMAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUI Two CCs to Gp FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI OhC CC tO SRI MULLANGI RAMI REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYATH loPUCl Two CD Copies To ,| 2 3 4 5 o 7 8 PSK. BS HIGH COURT DATED:2010112025 COMMON ORDER WP. N o. 32 1 97,32206,32208,3221 0,3221 1,32221,32320, 32323,32324,32326,32339 AND 32905 0F 2024 1 i{E SIAIG ( q 0 6 llrr lJll t tF.s parc ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS