ORDER : 1. Petitioner No. 1 is said to be a Society, set up as a charitable organization, without reference to the caste, religion, etc. Petitioner No. 2 is the President and Pastor of petitioner No. 1. 2. The case of the petitioners is as follows: (a) Petitioner No. 1 was registered on 18.06.2008. An extent of 242 square yards of land in R.S. No. 69 of Varathippa Village, a hamlet of Muthyalapalli, Mogalthuru Mandal, West Godavari District was acquired by way of a registered Sale-Deed dated 13.09.2011. The petitioner obtained Gram Panchayat permission on 08.07.2008 for construction of a building/community hall, but, however, due to financial constraints, a temporary shed could only be laid in the said site. In the year 2014, funds were obtained from District Minority Welfare Department for construction of a Prayer Hall and the same were used for that purpose. As the said Prayer Hall had become dilapidated, a request was made to the District Collector by letter dated 17.11.2020, for permission for construction of a Prayer Hall. At that stage, the 5th respondent who is the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, had addressed a letter dated 30.11.2020, stating that construction activities for the Church were being taken up without obtaining permission of the Collector and to stop further construction. Subsequently, the petitioners again, approached the District Collector by way of an application dated 04.04.2021 for permission for construction of Church. The said applications remained pending. (b) The Tahsildar of Mogalthuru Mandal by proceedings R.C. No. 106/2021/A, dated 12.05.2021, had informed the petitioners that they have to submit the permissions obtained from the District Minority Office and an application to the Panchayat Secretary for approval of building plans would also have to be made in accordance with G.O.Ms. No. 376 dated 29.11.2012. (c) Rule 26 of G.O.Ms. No. 67, dated 26.02.2002 stipulates that if permissions are not granted within 30 days of application, there would be a deeming permission to take up construction. In view of the said deeming provision, the petitioners took up construction of the Prayer Hall/Church in Survey No. 69. While the said construction was going on, respondents No. 8 to 15 appear to have made some complaints against the said construction. On the basis of the said complaints, respondents No. 1 to 7 have started interfering with the construction of the Prayer Hall/Church, which is not permissible. While the said construction was going on, respondents No. 8 to 15 appear to have made some complaints against the said construction. On the basis of the said complaints, respondents No. 1 to 7 have started interfering with the construction of the Prayer Hall/Church, which is not permissible. The petitioners submit that on account of this interference, they are forced to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition. 3. The Tahsildar, Mogalthuru Mandal, who is respondent No. 3, has filed a counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioners instead of constructing the Prayer Hall in R.S. No. 69, had in fact constructed the Prayer Hall in R.S. No. 192/1, which is classified as “Gramakantam.” He also submits that the said construction is in violation of G.O.Ms. No. 376, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department dated 29.11.2012, as necessary permission from the District Collector for construction of a religious building had not been obtained. 4. The 2nd Respondent District Collector, has filed a counter affidavit reiterating the contentions raised by respondent No. 3. Apart from this, the 2nd respondent has also filed proceedings No. 1836386/A2/2021, dated 02.07.2021, rejecting the application of the petitioners dated 04.04.2021, for permission to construct the said Prayer Hall/Church on four grounds: (i) Firstly, the construction was being carried out in R.S. No. 192/1, which is Government land, instead of R.S. No. 69. (ii) Secondly, registration of the 1st petitioner Society is irregular. (iii) Thirdly, the Gram Panchayat has granted approval for construction of an Asbestos Roofed Community Hall building in 2008 and no permission for construction of a Church either in R.S. No. 69 or in R.S. No. 192/1 has been granted and that the District Collector is the competent authority to grant permission for construction of Church. (iv) Fourthly, the petitioners had obtained funds for construction of Prayer Hall in R.S. No. 69, but had constructed Church in R.S. No. 192/1, which is not permissible. 5. Further, it is stated that the Assistant Director, District Minorities Welfare Department, had directed the Mandal Tahsildar and MPDO of Mogalthuru mandal to take action against the petitioners for obtaining funds in a fraudulent manner. 6. Respondent No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioners have sought to construct a Prayer Hall/Church, without following the procedure and without obtaining required permission for such construction. 6. Respondent No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioners have sought to construct a Prayer Hall/Church, without following the procedure and without obtaining required permission for such construction. Further, construction is being carried out in R.S. No. 192/1 instead of R.S. No. 69, which the 1st petitioner claims to own. Further, respondent No. 4 states that a notice dated 11.05.2021 was issued to the petitioners to stop constructions on account of these discrepancies and defects. 7. Respondent No. 12 has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 8 to 14. In this counter affidavit, these respondents have taken the stand that the initial allocation of 145 square yards of land in favour of the 1st petitioner itself is not valid, as the settler in the deed dated 02.06.2007 did not have any title over the property. Apart from this, the 12th respondent has reiterated the contentions raised by other respondents in their counter affidavits. 8. Sri. V.S.K. Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Rule 26 of G.O.Ms. No. 67, dated 26.02.2002, as amended by G.O.Ms. No. 376, dated 29.11.2012 incorporates a deeming provision, which permits the petitioners to commence construction of the Prayer Hall/Church, if permissions are not granted within 30 days of application for such permission. He submits that as the petitioners have submitted an application to the Collector on 04.04.2021 for permission to make construction, the period of 30 days elapses by 05.05.2021 and the construction taken up by the petitioners, thereafter, cannot be deemed to be irregular or illegal. He would further submit that the petitioners have constructed Church/Prayer Hall only within the 145 square yards in R.S. No. 69 and there has been no encroachment by the petitioners. 9. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri. I. Koti Reddy, Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayats, appearing for official respondents, Sri. Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for private respondents and Sri. Rambabu Koppineedi, learned counsel for respondent No. 7 the Sub-Inspector of Police who is made a party by name, have made their submissions. 10. The said submissions are to the effect that the deeming provision of Rule 26 is not available to the petitioners as the requirements of Rule 26 have not been fulfilled. It is their further submission that the petitioners are required to obtain two permissions. 10. The said submissions are to the effect that the deeming provision of Rule 26 is not available to the petitioners as the requirements of Rule 26 have not been fulfilled. It is their further submission that the petitioners are required to obtain two permissions. Firstly, permission from the District Collector for construction of religious building and secondly, building permission from the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of Building Rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 67, dated 26.02.2022. In the present case, no such application was made to the Gram Panchayat for obtaining building permission. 11. Further, it is submitted that even if it is assumed that deeming provision is available to the petitioners, there are two requirements which have not been complied with. In view of non-fulfillment of these conditions, the deeming provisions are not available to the petitioners. 12. It is further submitted that de hors these issues, the petitioners have constructed the Church/Prayer Hall in R.S. No. 192/1 instead of R.S. No. 69 and as such, the entire construction is illegal and cannot be permitted to stand. 13. A brief recital of facts is necessary, for proper adjudication of this matter. The petitioner had constructed asbestos roof community hall in the year 2008, in 145 sq. yards of land in R.S. No. 69. This construction was done after obtaining approvals of the Gram Panchayat. The approval was obtained for construction of a community hall and not a religious structure. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained financial assistance for construction of a Church in December, 2018. 14. The petitioner commenced construction of full-fledged building without any approval from the Gram Panchayat. As such, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, on 30.11.2020 issued a notice to stop the construction. In December, 2020 the petitioner dismantled the entire construction and sought to construct a new building. 15. On 04.04.2021, the petitioner filed an application for permission for construction of a building to the District Collector. However, no application was made to the Gram Panchayat for building permission. The petitioner had also sought permission from the Tahsildar for making, the said construction. On 12.05.2021, the Tahsildar asked the petitioner to get necessary permissions from the authorities including the permission from the District Collector. 16. On 20.05.2021, the petitioner submitted an application seeking approval for constructing a “prayer hall.” This application was rejected by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat on 25.05.2021. On 12.05.2021, the Tahsildar asked the petitioner to get necessary permissions from the authorities including the permission from the District Collector. 16. On 20.05.2021, the petitioner submitted an application seeking approval for constructing a “prayer hall.” This application was rejected by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat on 25.05.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 01.06.2021. 17. The recital of facts would not be complete without dealing with the contention of the petitioner that an application had been addressed to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat on 30.11.2020 for commencement of construction of a “prayer hall.” This contention of the petitioner is not supported by any document or contemporaneous material. The communications between the petitioner and the authorities do not mention this document. In the circumstances, this Court cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that an application was made on 30.11.2020. 18. The construction of buildings, including prayer halls, is regulated by G.O.Ms. No. 67, dated 26.02.2002, which came to be amended by G.O.Ms. No. 376 dated 29.11.2012. The provisions of G.O.Ms. No. 67 dated 26.02.2002 require prior permission being obtained from the local body, before any construction can be made. This would require an application to be made under Rule 14. The Executive Authority of the local body, after processing the said application, may grant sanction for such construction with or without modifications. The relevant Rule for this purpose is Rule 26, which reads as follows: “26. Sanction or refusal of Permission: The Layout plans/building plans with drawings and specifications may be sanctioned with or without modifications or directions as are deemed necessary or refused by the Executive Authority within: (i) (15) days in case of individual residential buildings. (ii) (30) days in case of other buildings. Where no orders are communicated by the Executive Authority of sanction or refusal of the permission, the Executive Authority shall be deemed to have permitted the proposed permission and the owner may go ahead with the work provided that the same: (i) Is in accordance with these rules. (ii) The owner intimates in writing of his undertaking construction/development.” 19. Subsequently, G.O.Ms. (ii) The owner intimates in writing of his undertaking construction/development.” 19. Subsequently, G.O.Ms. No. 376 dated 29.11.2012 added the following clause to Rule 26: “In Rule 26 of the said rules, after the existing provision, the following shall be added, namely: “No site shall be used for the construction of a building intended for public worship or religious purposes without the 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 to endanger public peace and order, after giving an opportunity to the applicant to show cause against such refusal.” 20. A conjoint reading of these two provisions makes it clear that any person, before undertaking any construction in a Gram Panchayat, has to first apply for permission from the Gram Panchayat for constructing any building. This application is to be considered by the Gram Panchayat and the Executive Authority of the Gram Panchayat would, thereafter, either sanction the building permission or sanction it with modifications or reject the building permission. 21. Rule 26 has two additional features. Firstly, where the proposed construction relates to a religious building, prior permission of the District Collector is necessary before an application for construction can be considered by the Executive Authority of the Gram Panchayat. The second feature is that the person applying for permission may commence construction, if no response is given by the Executive Authority within 15 days in the case of residential buildings and 30 days in the case of other buildings. Upon failure of the Executive Authority to accord permission within the above stipulated periods, the permission is deemed to have been given and the applicant may go ahead with the construction of the building. However, this deeming provision comes into play only when the construction is in accordance with the Rules issued under G.O.Ms. No. 67 dated 26.02.2002 and the applicant intimates the Gram Panchayat that he is going ahead with the construction on account of the deeming clause in Rule 26. 22. The petitioner is relying upon the deeming provision in Rule 26 to contend that the construction carried out by the petitioner is legal and that the respondents cannot interfere in the matter. 23. In the present case, the petitioner has not made any application for special permission under the Rules issued under G.O.Ms. 22. The petitioner is relying upon the deeming provision in Rule 26 to contend that the construction carried out by the petitioner is legal and that the respondents cannot interfere in the matter. 23. In the present case, the petitioner has not made any application for special permission under the Rules issued under G.O.Ms. No. 67 dated 26.02.2002. In the absence of any such application, the deeming provision does not arise. Secondly, the applicant is required to give a written intimation informing the Gram Panchayat that construction is being taken up under Rule 26. No such intimation has been given by the petitioner. Finally, any construction carried out under Rule 26 has to be in accordance with the Rules. In the present case, all the respondents have unanimously contended that the petitioner has taken up the construction of the “prayer hall” in R.S. No. 192/1, which is Government land, and the construction is not being carried out in R.S. No. 69. Rule 26 requires the petitioner to obtain prior approval of the collector to build the prayer hall, which is a building which is sought to be used for religious purposes. No such permission has been obtained. 24. For all these reasons, it would have to be held that the construction being carried out by the petitioner is clearly illegal and not in accordance with the Rules issued under G.O.Ms. No. 67, dated 26.02.2002. 25. Another aspect of the matter is the requirement of obtaining permission from the District Collector. The amended Rule 26 requires that any construction of building, intended for public worship or religious purposes, has to be undertaken only after prior approval for such construction is given by the District collector. In the present case, the respondents have treated the building under construction as a Church. The petitioner insists that the said building is only a “prayer hall.” However, the fact remains that the building is intended to be used for public worship or religious purpose. In that view of the matter, prior approval of the District Collector is necessary. In the present case, the application given by the petitioner on 04.04.2021 has been rejected by the District Collector by proceedings No. 1836386/A2/2021, dated 02.07.2021. 26. Viewed from any angle, it is obvious that the construction being carried out by the petitioner is illegal and cannot be permitted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. In the present case, the application given by the petitioner on 04.04.2021 has been rejected by the District Collector by proceedings No. 1836386/A2/2021, dated 02.07.2021. 26. Viewed from any angle, it is obvious that the construction being carried out by the petitioner is illegal and cannot be permitted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 27. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.