THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.14359 OF 2025 ORDER:- 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the inaction of the respondents in taking action to stop the unauthorized construction of temple in a public place i.e Panchayat Road in Sy.no.83/1 of Perugugudem Village, Denduluru Mandal, Eluru District by the unofficial respondents 7 to 12 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct Respondent Nos.2 to 6 to stop the unauthorized construction of the temple in Panchayat Road of Perugugudem Village, Denduluru Mandal, Eluru District. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is the owner of the property of house site admeasuring an extent of Ac.0-09 cents in Sy.No.83/1 situated at Perugugudem Village, Denduluru Mandal, Eluru District. The said property was acquired by the grandfather of dthe petitioner through registered sale deed bearing Document No.1645/1966 dated 14.06.1966. Since then, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property till today either by himself or through his predecessors. While so, the unofficial respondents/Respondent Nos.7 to 12 are proposing to construct a temple on the panchayat road, adjacent to his house and for that purpose, they removed the cement road existing adjacent to his house, thereby obstructing access to the house of the petitioner. The unofficial respondents are proceeding with 2 NV,J W.P.No.14359 of 2025 the constructions without there being any valid permission from the competent authority i.e. second respondent herein, for which the petitioner had submitted representations to Respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein. Even after submission of representations to Respondent Nos.2 to 6 by the petitioner, without considering the representation and without giving any reply, the official respondents i.e. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are allowing the unofficial respondents/ Respondent Nos.7 to 12 to proceed with the construction of the temple in the name of Ramalayam. Hence the writ petition. 3. Respondent No.3, 7 to 12 filed counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated that the Ramalayam Temple is in dilapidated condition and the villagers proposed to remove the same and requested permission to reconstruct the temple. Gram Panchayat has resolved in its Resolution No.120 dated 12.03.2025 for taking further necessary action to reconstruct the temple. In Gram Sabha meeting vide Subject No.31 dated 24.04.2025 approved the construction of Ramalayam Temple in the place of the dilapidated temple. It is stated that the Village Revenue Officer, Timmanagudem of Denduluru Mandal submitted that in R.S.No.83/1, an extent of Ac.6-93 cents is Grama Kantam of village and there is an existing Ramalayam in Ac.0-04 cents. The Tahsildar, Denduluru has also certified that it is a Grama Kantam site as per records. The villagers formed Sri Ramalayam Punah Nirmana Temple 3 NV,J W.P.No.14359 of 2025 Development Committee and has requested to accord permission for reconstruction of the temple. The father of the present petitioner also filed suit before the Principle Junior Civil Judge, Eluru vide O.S.No.188/1997 seeking permanent injunction against the defendants and the same was dismissed on 04.06.2001 stating that the petitioner is not entitled for the claim as prayed for. Again the petitioner filed this writ petition on the same issue. It is stated that the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Perugugudem issued notices to the unofficial respondents not to proceed with the constitution till permission is accorded, then construction was stopped. It was reported by the Panchayat Secretary that there is a temple for days immemorial and the villagers proposed to reconstruct the dilapidated temple in the same place. The contention of the petitioner that there is a road to his home is not true and the petitioner is having a passage no obstruction for ingress and egress to his house. The temple already existed and at present Respondent Nos.7 to 12 is renovating the existing temple as it is and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 4. During the hearing, Sri M.P.V.N.V. Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that construction of the temple without obtaining prior permission from the second respondent, as mandated under Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002, is unlawful. Further, it is contended that the inaction of Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in permitting the construction of the 4 NV,J W.P.No.14359 of 2025 temple is in violation of the law and requested this Court to direct Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 to refrain from permitting any further construction in relation to the temple. 5. Sri Chalasani Venkaiah, learned counsel appearing for Respondents Nos. 7 to 12, submitted that the unofficial respondents submitted an application seeking permission for the construction of the temple to the competent authority i.e. 2nd respondent herein. But so far, no such permission has been granted by the competent authority till date. Learned counsel further undertook on behalf of the unofficial respondents that no construction would be carried until such permission is granted by the competent authority i.e. by the 2nd respondent. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for Respondents Nos. 7 to 12, it is observed that the Ramalayam Temple is situated adjacent to the Hanuman Temple within close proximity to the petitioner’s residence. It further observed that there is no admitted or recognized panchayat road is in occupation by the proposed temple construction, as alleged by the petitioner. As the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence substantiating his claim that there is an existence of a notified or recognized panchayat road abutting the temple and his house. As seen from the entire record, the fact remains that, no permission has 5 NV,J W.P.No.14359 of 2025 been obtained from the second respondent as required under Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002. 7. It is a settled principle of law that no building or temple shall be constructed without the requisite valid permission from the competent authority. In the instant case, no such permission has been granted by the second respondent, and the application submitted by the unofficial respondents is pending for consideration. Therefore, Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 are hereby specifically directed not to permit any construction of the temple styled as Ramalayam Temple until permission is granted by the second respondent. However, upon grant of the requisite permission, Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 would be authorized to permit construction of the temple by issuing appropriate consequential orders. 8. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. 9. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand dismissed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 07.10.2025 SP 6 NV,J W.P.No.14359 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.14359 OF 2025 Date: 07.10.2025 W SP