APHC010133382023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6914/2023 & 12557/2024 W.P.No: 6914/2023: Between: B Anthony ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES 4. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV APHC010235972024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12557/2024 Between: K Uligappa and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PONNADA SREE VYAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. M DHANA RAJU 3. K M KRISHNA REDDY 4. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: The grievance of the petitioners in W.P.No.12557 of 2024 is that, the respondent authorities are allowing the 9th respondent to construct place of public worship in open site to an extent of Ac.0.33 cents in Sy.No.470A in Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Sreedevi Estate, Mandagiri Panchayat, Adoni, Kurnool District. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.6914 of 2023 is that, the 5th respondent issued impugned notice dated 10.03.2023 directing the petitioner to remove Church buildings existing in an extent of Ac.0.06 cents in L.P.No.66/89 in Sy.No.470A situated in Mandagiri Village Gram Panchayat, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District. 3. Heard Sri Butta Vijaya Bhasker, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6914 of 2023, Sri M.Sudheer, learned Standing counsel for the Gram Panchayat, Sri Chandrasekhar, learned Assistant government pleader for Revenue Department and Sri KSR Murthy Associates, learned counsel for the 6th respondent in W.P.No.6914 of 2023. 4. The petitioner in W.P.No.6914 of 2023 is the 9th respondent in W.P.No.12557 of 2024. Since both the writ petitions are interlinked, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 5. The parties hereinafter are referred to with their status mentioned in W.P.No.6914 of 2023. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6914 of 2023 while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that the 5th respondent- Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution dated 19.01.2000 allotting the open site of Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.470-A and subsequently, the petitioner completed construction of church and hall in the year 2014. While so, based on the complaint given by some people, the 5th respondent issued notice dated 23.07.2014 directing the petitioner to stop the construction work and not to conduct any activities. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.36940/2014 wherein this Hon’ble Court has granted interim order in favour of the petitioner. Later, the 6th respondent herein had filed W.P.No.30730/2018 seeking to remove the church in subject site on the alleged ground that it was constructed by encroaching the public site. Pursuant to the filing of the said writ petition, the respondent authorities have issued another notice dated 07.12.2018 directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction of church within 3 days. Questioning the said notice, the petitioner herein filed another writ petition vide W.P.No.45207/2018 wherein this Hon’ble Court has granted interim order. He further submitted that after disposal of above writ petitions, the 4th respondent-Divisional Panchayat Officer passed an order dated 03.01.2022 stating that the construction of church is unauthorized and not as per rules and liable for removal and further directed the petitioner to submit fresh proposal to the Gram Panchayat or District Collector for construction of church with proper documents as per procedure. Subsequently, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the District collector through RPAD on 15.11.2022. He further submitted that, pending consideration of the said representation, the 5th respondent issued impugned notice dated 10.03.2023 directing the petitioner to remove the church within 7 days failing which appropriate action will be taken in accordance with law. He further submitted that having allotted the subject site to the petitioner for construction church in the year 2000, now after long time, the 5th respondent issued impugned notice without considering the representations made by the petitioner in proper perspective is arbitrary and unsustainable. If such action is allowed to materialize, the petitioner would be put to suffer much irreparable loss and hardship. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 7. Whereas, learned counsel for the 6th respondent in W.P.No.6914 of 2023 submitted that subject Church is constructed in the open site in a lay out. He further submitted that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.376 dated 29.11.2012 and Rule 26 of the A.P.Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002, the District collector is the competent authority to give permission for construction of a building intended for public worship or religious purposes and Gram Panchayat has no power to issue any permission for construction of Church. He further submitted that, whenever the authorities are trying to issue notices, the petitioner, in one way of the other, is approaching this Hon’ble Court by filing writ petitions and obtaining interim orders by suppressing the facts. In view of the same, the Gram Panchayat has rightly issued impugned notice dated 10.03.2023 directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized church in the subject land within 7 days. As such no indulgence need be shown on the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Sri M.Sudheer, learned Standing counsel for the Gram Panchayat on counter submitted that the land to an extent of Ac.0.33 cents in L.P.No.66/89 is kept aside for communal purpose and the same was handed over to the Mandagiri Gram Panchayat by the layout developer under gift deed, as such the subject property belongs to the Gram Panchayat. He further submitted that the resolution with PR No.44 dated 19.01.2000 on which the petitioner is placing reliance was signed by the Sarpanch and the same is irregular and not valid by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.376 dated 29.11.2012 which envisages that the District collector is the competent authority to give permission for construction of a building intended for public worship or religious purposes and Gram Panchayat has no power to issue any permission for construction of Church. In view of the same, the Gram Panchayat has rightly issued impugned notice dated 10.03.2023 and there neither illegality nor procedural irregularity and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Perused the record and considered the submissions of the respective learned counsel. 10. In the above background, G.O.Ms.No.376 dated 29.11.2012 is relevant and by virtue of the said G.O.Ms.No.376, Rule 26 has been incorporated in G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26.02.2022 which reads as follows: “No site shall be used for construction of a building intended for public worship or religious purposes without prior approval of the Collector of the district who may refuse such approval if, in his opinion, the use of the site for the proposed construction of the building is likely endanger public peace and order, after giving an opportunity to the applicant to show cause against such refusal.” 11. According to G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26.02.2022, every person shall obtain building permission from the Gram Panchayat before constructing a building. As per the G.O.Ms.No.376, if the building is intended for public worship or religious purposes, then the permission has to be obtained from the District Collector. 12. Admittedly in W.P.No.6914 of 2023, the petitioner has constructed a Church for religious purposes in the open site in the layout. Firstly, it is well settled principle of law that, a site earmarked for communal or public purposes in a layout, such as a park, playground, or community hall, cannot be used for any other purpose since the land is considered to be held in a "Public Trust" by the local authority for the benefit of the general public, and any deviation from its designated use is illegal. In view of the same, it is the duty cast upon the Gram Panchayat to safeguard the same. Secondly, by virtue of the above said provisions, the petitioner has to obtain permission from the District Collector, if the building is intended for public/religious purposes but in the present case, the petitioner has not obtained permission from the District Collector as stated supra, instead he has obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat vide a resolution dated 19.01.2000 which was signed by the Sarpanch, who is not a competent authority. Further, a perusal of the resolution dated 19.01.2000 relied by the petitioner shows that the Gram Panchayat has resolved to allot the land in Sy.No.470A admeasuring Ac.0.33 cents in L.P.No.68/69 for construction of prayer hall. It does not mean that the Gram Panchayat has given permission for construction of prayer hall. As such, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions stated supra, this Court does not find any fault with the impugned notice dated 10.03.2023 issued by the 5th respondent-Gram Panchayat in W.P.No.6914 of 2023. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court and the writ petition vide W.P.No.6914 of 2023 is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition vide W.P.No.6914 of 2023 is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of W.P.No.6914 of 2023, as the respondents have set the law into motion, no further orders are required to be passed in W.P.No.12557 of 2024 and the same is liable to be closed. Accordingly, the writ petition vide W.P.No.12557 of 2024 is closed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS