IMMANUEL K Vs. PALAKOLE MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The layout in T.S.No.938/4 and 7 was approved by the Palakole Municipality. The layout consists of 14 plots. Plot Nos.l to 3 were purchased by one Nanneti Augustine on behalf of Nagabathula Joshna Daniel in 1991 under a registered sale deed. In the plot purchased he raised a hut and started conducting prayers on every Sunday of the week. The property later came to belong to a non-denominational Church known as Laymens' Evangelical Fellowship (LEF) Group. Since then, Nagabathula Joshna Daniel and after him one K. Chandrapal have been in-charge of the Church. In January, 1993, the said Church made attempts to get necessary site approval as well as building permission from the District Collector, West Godavari, the second respondent herein as well as Palakole Municipality, the first respondent herein, the application for building permission appears to have been forwarded by the first respondent to the second respondent requesting for permission for construction of community hall/prayer hall of Laymens' Evangelical Fellowship Group. The matter was enquired into. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Palakole in his Roc. No.843/96(C), dated 18-40-1996 inspected the community hall on 6-10-1996 and submitted a report to the District Collector. In his representation he stated that he inspected the community hall on 6-10-1996 where the LKF group is gathering in a thatched shed, that the land in an extent of 16 cents was purchased by NannetiAugustine on behalf of Nagabathula Joshna Daniel, Principal Secretary of LEF Church, that the Municipality submitted proposals to the District Collector for grant of permission for construction of religious building and that as the area is situated at the outskirts of the town, necessary permission/approval for the site for construction of the Church be accorded. Thereafter, it is not known as to what is the action taken by the second respondent.

(2.) In the meanwhile, the owners of plot Nos,4 to 13 in the same layout filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the third respondent in constructing a Church in the middle of the residential locality without obtaining necessary permission is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 ('the Act' for brevity). This Court ordered notice before admission on 18-4-2000 and also granted interim direction directing the respondents not to permit any construction of the Church in the layout. Now, the third respondent has come forward with an application being WVMP No.1523 of 2000 praying to vacate the interim order dated 18-4- 2000.1 have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities and the learned Counsel for the third respondent. The matter is being disposed of finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) Section 211 read with Sections 212 and 213 of the Act provides that nobody shall construct or re-construct a building without permission of the Commissioner of the Municipality. Schedule III appended to the Act contains building rules Rule 5(3) requires the prior approval of the District Collector for the site to be used for the construction of a building intended for public worship or religious purposes. Therefore, the Municipal Commissioner, Palakole was justified in forwarding the application made by the third respondent to the District Collector seeking approval of the site in plot Nos.l to 3 of the layout in T.S. No.938/4 and 7 of Palakole. It is only after the approval of the site by the District Collector, the Municipality can take up the application seeking permission to construct the building. Till the site for construction of a place of public worship or a place for public purpose is approved and building permission granted, the third respondent is not entitled to raise any construction much less a construction for the purpose of Church. It is for the District Collector, at the first instance to grant approval of the site. In this case, as submitted .by Sri Subhakara Rao, learned Counsel for the third respondent, the Mandal Revenue Officer has already conducted inspection and submitted a report on 18-10-1996 through the Sub-Collector, Narsapur requesting the District Collector to accord permission for construction of LEF Church. Indeed, the Mandal Revenue Officer also sent a reminder to the Sub-Collector on 24-12-1996 to forward his report as well as notes of inspection to the District Collector. Therefore, the District Collector is required to take necessary action in this matter which has been kept pending for unduly long period.