ORDER : Since the issue to be resolved in these three writ petitions relates to same property and the parties to the writ petitions are one and the same, these three writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid ambiguity in the discussion, the facts in W.P.No.19139 of 2021 are taken into consideration. 3. The brief case of the petitioner society is that on an application made by it to the 5th respondent-Grampanchayat as well as the District Level Authorities, the petitioner society was allotted land admeasuring Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.560/A/2 of Uravakonda Village and Mandal, Anantapuram District by the Grampanchayat vide resolution No.81 dated 28.03.2006. Pursuant to the resolution passed by the Grampanchayat, the 2nd respondent by letter dated 17.05.2006 informed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Uravakonda about the allotment of the subject land in favour of the petitioner society and instructing him to report the action taken by him. The 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 10.02.2011 confirmed the same and directed that the subject land has to be used for the sake of Members of the society only. The 3rd respondent also addressed a letter dated 14.12.2013 to the 5th respondent to implement the allotment orders. In view of the said allotment and the proceedings of respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner society has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and it has been carrying out the handloom works in the subject land. Subsequently, the petitioner society made an application to the Grampanchayat seeking permission for construction of a common facility centre in the subject land and the Grampanchayat issued permission on 30.05.2018 and it is renewed upto 2022. Recently, the petitioner society started construction of a compound wall and a common facility centre. While the matter stood thus, respondent Nos.4 and 5 without following due procedure, at the instigation of local politicians, are interfering with the possession of the petitioner society’s land and removed the stones erected for construction of the compound wall highhandedly and illegally and also shifted the cement and sand from the subject land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner society filed W.P.No.19139 of 2021 to declare the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in interfering with the petitioner society’s land, as illegal and arbitrary. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner society filed W.P.No.19139 of 2021 to declare the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in interfering with the petitioner society’s land, as illegal and arbitrary. a) When the aforesaid writ petition came up for hearing on 03.09.2021, this Court while ordering notice before admission, directed respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to interfere with the petitioner society’s land. b) Thereafter, the Grampanchayat passed a resolution 14 (1) dated 29.04.2021 cancelling the earlier resolution No.81 dated 28.03.2006 without there being any authority and without following due procedure as contemplated under the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) on the ground that the petitioner society did not undertake any construction activity in the subject land. After receipt of the interim orders of this Court dated 03.09.2021 in W.P.No.19139 of 2021, the Grampanchayat passed the resolution with a back date i.e., 29.04.2021 only to harass the members of the petitioner society. The same is under challenge in W.P.No.22170 of 2021. c) Due to lack of funds, the petitioner society could not complete the construction in time. On a request made by the society, the Grampanchayat renewed the sanction plan upto 19.05.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted representations dated 18.04.2022 and 18.05.2022 to the Grampanchayat seeking renewal of the sanction plan for a further period from 19.05.2022. But, for one reason or the other, the Grampanchayat neither renewed the sanction plan nor rejected the representations of the petitioner society so far. The same is questioned in W.P.No.19839 of 2022. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner society would submit that the petitioner society is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land since 2006 and it has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by doing handloom works viz., to dry yarn, etc. in open space and the society also constructed a temporary compound wall around the subject land. The allotment of the land was confirmed and approved by respondent Nos.2 and 3 by issuing separate proceedings and they also directed the Grampanchayat to implement their proceedings to achieve the object for which it was allotted. The learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner society obtained permission for construction of a common facility center and a pucca compound wall from the Grampanchayat. The learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner society obtained permission for construction of a common facility center and a pucca compound wall from the Grampanchayat. Pursuant to the said permission, when the petitioner society tried to construct the common facility center as well as the compound wall, at the instance of some third parties/local leaders the Grampanchayat caused obstruction and interference with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner society’s land without there being any prior notice and without following due process of law. At the admission stage, after hearing both the counsels, this Court passed an interim order dated 03.09.2021 in W.P.No.19139 of 2021 directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to interfere with the petitioner society’s land and its construction activity in the subject land. i) The learned counsel would further submit that pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, the petitioner continued the construction activities. In the meanwhile, the Grampanchayat passed a resolution No.14 (1) dated 29.04.2021 cancelling the earlier resolution No.81 dated 28.03.2006 under which the subject land was allotted to the petitioner society. The learned counsel would contend that cancellation of the earlier resolution is contrary to the procedure contemplated under the Act and also to the proceedings issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Moreover, he contends that pursuant to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 17.05.2006, the Grampanchayat passed another resolution dated 14.06.2006 for alienation of the said land in favour of the petitioner society. Therefore, mere cancellation of resolution No.81 dated 28.03.2006 cannot take away the rights of the petitioner society for the reason that the rights of the petitioner were confirmed and accrued through the proceedings of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and also pursuant to the further resolution of the Grampanchayat dated 14.06.2006. Therefore, the impugned resolution No.14(1) dated 29.04.2021 is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. ii) The learned counsel would submit that in view of the continuous obstruction and interference caused by the third parties as well as the staff of the Grampanchayat, the petitioner society could not have completed the construction within the prescribed period as contemplated under the terms of building permission granted by the Grampanchayat. In view of lapse of the period of sanction plan, the petitioner society sought for renewal and the same was also renewed upto 19.05.2022. In view of lapse of the period of sanction plan, the petitioner society sought for renewal and the same was also renewed upto 19.05.2022. Even after renewal also, the petitioner society is not allowed to make the construction by the local leaders as well as the staff of the Grampanchayat and directed the petitioner society to make another application. The learned counsel would contend that though the petitioner society submitted representations dated 18.04.2022 and 18.05.2022 to the Grampanchayat seeking renewal of sanction plan, the Grampanchayat for the reasons best known to it neither renewed the sanction plan nor rejected the representations of the petitioner society to carry on the construction activities. Such action of the Grampanchayat in not renewing the sanction plan is contrary to Section 127(6) of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner society is entitled for renewal of the sanction plan. 5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the 5th respondent-Grampanchayat would submit that the writ petitions are not filed by the petitioner under proper authority and hence, they are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that the Grampanchayat is trying to protect the entire land which was allotted to the petitioner society from the land grabbers and is not interfering with the possession of the petitioner society’s property. He would contend that even though the subject land was allotted to the petitioner society in the year 2006, but for reasons best known to it, the land was remained vacant and no developmental activities were undertaken by the petitioner society. Therefore, the purpose for which the land was allotted was defeated. The learned standing counsel would further submit that the Grampanchayat passed a resolution No.14 (1) dated 29.04.2021 cancelling the allotment of the subject land in favour of the petitioner society by exercising its powers under Section 41 of the Act and also as per the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.227 dated 13.04.1995. Therefore, the subsequent resolution passed by the Grampanchayat cancelling the allotment of the subject land in favour of the petitioner society is valid, in view of non-achievement of the object of allotment by the petitioner society. Therefore, the subsequent resolution passed by the Grampanchayat cancelling the allotment of the subject land in favour of the petitioner society is valid, in view of non-achievement of the object of allotment by the petitioner society. He would further contend that the permission was granted on 30.05.2018 with a condition that the construction shall be completed within a period of one year i.e., on or before 29.05.2019, but the petitioner society failed to adhere to the said condition. The contention of the petitioner society that the permission was renewed upto May 2022 is not true and correct. The learned standing counsel would contend that the Grampanchayat has not renewed the sanction plan upto 19.05.2022, but the petitioner society got made an entry to the effect that the sanction plan was renewed upto 19.05.2022, by affixing the stamp of the Panchayat Secretary upon the sanction plan. Therefore, there is no renewal of sanction plan in favour of the petitioner society. He would also contend that the writ petitions are not maintainable in as much as the petitioner society does not have any cause of action and the so-called representations dated 18.04.2022 and 18.05.2022 said to have been submitted by it were not at all received by the Grampanchayat. The learned counsel would further contend that the seal of the Grampanchayat said to have been affixed on the representations of the petitioner society dated 18.04.2022 and 18.05.2022 does not belong to the Grampanchayat and it is a self made seal of Panchayat by the petitioner society. Therefore, there is no cause of action for filing W.P.No.19839 of 2022. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 6. Having regard to the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner society as well as the learned standing counsel for the Grampanchayat and the material placed along with the writ petitions, the fact remains is that the petitioner society is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land, by virtue of the allotment and the alienation made by the Grampanchayt vide resolution No.81 dated 28.03.2006 and resolution dated 14.06.2006 respectively, pursuant to the approval and sanction by the 2nd respondent by his proceedings dated 1705.2006 and also the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent dated 10.02.2011 and 14.12.2013. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner society has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land without there being any interference and hindrance since 2006 and the members of the society have been utilising the said vacant land for doing their professional work to dry the yarn in open space. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner society obtained permission from the Grampanchayat for construction of the common facility center and the compound wall vide proceedings dated 30.05.2018 and pursuant to the said permission, the petitioner society commenced the construction activities. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner society that the impugned resolution No.14(1) dated 29.04.2021 cancelling the earlier resolution No.81 dated 28.03.2006 is without following due process under the provisions of the Act, is sustainable for the reason that there is no prior approval of the Commissioner for cancellation of the earlier resolution No.81 dated 28.03.2006. Here, it is an admitted fact that the impugned resolution does not contain any reference as to obtaining of prior permission of the Commissioner which is mandate under the provisions of the Act. The other contention of the petitioner society that the petitioner society submitted representations dated 18.04.2022 and 18.05.2022 to the Grampanchayat seeking renewal of the sanction plan permission which is mandatory on the part of the Grampanchayat authorities either to renew the sanction plan or to reject the representations, can also be considered in view of subsections 3 and 6 of Section 127 of the Act. 8. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the Grampanchayat that the writ petitions are not maintainable on the ground that the same were not filed by the proper authority is not sustainable for the reason that the writ petitions are filed by the petitioner society duly represented by its President, who is competent to file the writ petitions on its behalf, since the allotment was made in favour of the society and also it is an affected party by virtue of the impugned actions and the impugned proceedings of the Grampanchayat. The other contention of the learned standing counsel that resolution No.14(1) dated 29.04.2021 cancelling the earlier resolution No.81 dated 28.03.2006 is in accordance with law and the Grampanchayat is empowered to pass such resolution even without prior approval of the Commissioner, cannot be accepted in view of further confirmation of the earlier resolution No.81 dated 28.03.2006 by respondent Nos.2 and 3. The other contention of the learned standing counsel that the representations of the petitioner society dated 18.04.2022 and 18.05.2022 for renewal of sanction plan were not at all received by the Grampanchayat and there is no cause of action for the petitioner society to file the writ petitions, may not be considered for the reason that even if there is no proper application/representation seeking renewal of the permission, the Grampanchayat can issue a notice calling upon the petitioner society to submit a proper application/representation and on submission of such application, the Grampanchayat may consider the same and pass appropriate orders. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are merits in the writ petitions and the impugned action and the impugned proceedings of the Grampanchayat warrants interference of this Court. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned resolution No.14(1) dated 29.04.2021 issued by the 5th respondent-Grampanchayat is set aside. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioner society’s land admeasuring Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.560/A/2 of Uravakonda Village and Mandal, Anantapuram District, and its construction activities in the said land. The respondents are further directed to consider the representations of the petitioner society dated 18.04.2022 and 18.05.2022 for renewal of the sanction plan dated 30.05.2018 and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.