APHC010600172024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the first day of The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No. Between: The Rompicherla Madeena Development Masjid Committee and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. D. Kodandarami Reddy Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Panchayat Raj Rural Dev G.P. for Revenue Mattegunta Sudhir, S.C. for ZPPs, MPPs, Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) day of September, two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No. 31300 of 2024 The Rompicherla Madeena Development Masjid Committee … Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ... Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: odandarami Reddy Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Panchayat Raj Rural Dev Mattegunta Sudhir, S.C. for ZPPs, MPPs, Gram The Court made the following: [3311] , two thousand and twenty six Petitioner Respondents 2 W.P. No.31300 of 2024 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondent No. 2 in rejecting permission for the construction of the petitioner’s Masjid in the petitioner’s site admeasuring an extent of 345.54 square yards in S.No. 982/4, Rompicherla village and mandal, Chittoor district, by his proceedings in Roc. No. 1878/2022, C2 (pts), dated 28-12-2022 without providing any opportunity and conducting local enquiry as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and it is liable to be set aside and consequently direct the respondent No. 2 to grant such permission. 2. The case of the petitioner, stated briefly, is as follows: The Rompicherla Madeena Masjid Development Committee purchased a piece of land to an extent of 132.888 square yards and 127.111 square yards in S.No. 982/4 of Rompicherla village from Kalikiri Khasim Razvi, vide document No. 660 of 2017, dated 17.08.2017 and an extent of 85.55 square yards from Shaik Chand Basha under a registered document No. 883 of 2017, dated 26.10.2017 and another extent of 108 square yards in S.No. 982/4 from Patan Nagur Saheb vide registered document No. 882/2017, dated 26.10.2017. The above said lands were purchased by the committee to construct a masjid at Rompicherla village. After obtaining ‘no objection’ from the neighbours of the proposed Masjid for construction of the Masjid, an application was submitted, with a building plan, seeking permission for construction, on 27.07.2022 to the respondent No. 3 and on 29.06.2022 to the respondent No. 4. Again on 16.08.2022, the petitioner made a representation to the 3 W.P. No.31300 of 2024 respondent No. 2 seeking permission for construction of the Masjid. As there was no action, the petitioner filed a W.P.No. 30754 of 2022 before this Court. The petition was disposed of on 21.09.2022 with the following observation: “In view of the foregoing discussion and contentions submitted by the counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents, this Court is the opinion that the 4th respondent shall collect the fee payable by the petitioner and after receipt of the same, forward the application along with building plan to the 2nd respondent herein for prior approval of the same, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of payment of fee. After receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) months.” Accordingly, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 79,490/- as fee for sanction of the permission vide C.M.F.S. Transaction I.D.No. 60119518582022, dated 03.11.2022. The Panchayat Secretary submitted proposals to the District Collector, Chittoor / the respondent No. 2 for according approval for the construction of Masjid building. The respondent No. 5 / Tahsildar, Rompicherla Mandal submitted a report to the District Collector, Chittoor on 05.12.2022. The respondent No. 2, vide proceedings in Roc.No. 1878 of 2022 C2 (pts), dated 28.12.2022, rejected the proposals contrary to the directions issued in the order, dated 21.09.2022 in the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt case C.C. No. 1613 of 2023 for willful disobedience of the order in the writ petition. The same was closed on the ground that the District Collector passed an order rejecting the application. The respondent 4 W.P. No.31300 of 2024 No. 5, on political considerations, submitted the report to the District Collector, Chittoor without providing the petitioner an opportunity and conducting an enquiry of the local people. The Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Rompicherla, G. Nagaraju who belongs to Y.S.R. Congress party, influenced the Tahsildar to send a false report to the District Collector. The reasons stated for rejection of the application is that four (4) Masjids were located within a distance of 100 to 200 feet to the proposed place of construction of the Masjid. All the Masjids are within the distance of above 250 meters to 550 meters from the proposed place of construction. The Masjid Committees 1) Masjid-E-Aksa (Ahla Hadies), Rompicherla, 2) Mohammadpura Masjid-E-(Ahle Hadies), Rompicherla, 3) Masjid-E-Firdous Rompicherla and 4) Masjid-E-Umar, Rompicherla, have no objection for construction of the petitioners Masjid. Population of more than 20,000 are in the mandal headquarters of Rompicherla. The general public have no objection for construction of the Masjid. The then Tahsildar, Rompicherla Mandal, is now suspended by the District Collector, Sri Sata Sai District on allegations of corruption. It strengthens the contention that he had submitted the report on extraneous considerations. Hence, the order of the District Collector in rejecting the building permission of the petitioner’s Masjid based merely on the report of the Tahsildar is unsustainable. Hence, this writ petition was filed. 3. The respondent No. 4 filed a counter mainly stating that the Gram Panchayat has not passed any resolution for construction of mosque and that as per G.O.Ms.No. 376, dated 29.11.2012, District Collector is the competent authority to grant permission for religious purpose. 5 W.P. No.31300 of 2024 4. The respondent No. 5 filed a counter mainly stating that the matter was enquired with the local people on 26.09.2025 and that all the village elders and the villagers requested and accepted for construction of the mosque proposed by the petitioner, while stating that the subject matter sites were purchased only for the purpose of construction of Masjid and a portion of the group of people around 200 members belonging to ‘Ahl-e-Hadith’ have stated that they are not willing to go to the other nearest Masjid, but they want the proposed Masjid as it is convenient for every one of them and the other mosques are located at distant places and further that as a matter of caution, they formed a society registered in the name of the petitioner. It is further reported that there is no law and order problem for the construction of the new mosque and that the hindu religious people nearby also no objection for construction of the new mosque. 5. Copy of the statement / panchnama was enclosed to the counter. 6. Heard Sri Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel representing the counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondent No. 5. 7. Since Gram Panchayat is not competent authority for sanction of permission, it has no role. 8. The order of the respondent No. 2 impugned in the writ petition was based on the report of the Tahsildar submitted by then. Now, the counter filed by the successor in office of the respondent No. 5 is contrary to the earlier report, basing on which the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner request to give suitable directions, while disposing of the writ 6 W.P. No.31300 of 2024 petition, for submission of a fresh application by the petitioner or for fresh consideration of the request of the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 based on the subsequent enquiry held by the respondent No. 5. 9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondent No. 5 as in the counter filed by the respondent No. 5. 10. Since the order of the respondent No. 2 impugned in the writ petition was in accordance with the report of the then Tahsildar, there appears no illegality on the face of it. However, in view of the contents of the counter of the respondent No. 5, the impugned order shall not be a bar either for fresh consideration for grant of permission for consideration basing on a renewed request and necessary material. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit a fresh application to the respondent No. 2 seeking appropriate petition with necessary documents, without further paying any fee, since it was already paid. Upon such submission, the respondent No. 2 shall dispose of the same on merits, as per law, without being influenced by the previous order which is challenged in this writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________ ___ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt. 01.09.2026 PNV