ORDER : The W.P.No.26786 of 2022 is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.1 therein (APCRDA, represented by its Commissioner) in not granting permission for the construction of the Church on the application dated 04.09.2018. 2. The W.P.No.24405 of 2016 is filed questioning the action of the respondents therein in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner No.1’s land and prayer house of the petitioner No.2 and unilaterally trying to dispossess the petitioner No.1 therein admeasuring Ac.4-25 cents by demolishing and evicting the petitioner No.2 therein from the prayer home in Survey No.172/2, Raypudi Village, Tullur Mandal, Guntur District in spite of the representation dated 05.07.2016. 3. The W.P.No.33202 of 2018 is filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.3 and 5 therein in not taking steps to stop the illegal constructions done by the respondent Nos.6 and 7 therein in S.No.172/2 of Veerapanenipalem, Rayapudi Village, Tullur Mandal, Guntur District. 4. The W.P.No.36811 of 2018 is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.2 therein in processing the proposal for construction of a Church in Survey No.172/2 of Rayapudi village, Tullur Mandal, Guntur District in R.C.No.2059/2018-E1, dated 27.09.2018, on the ground that it is contrary to Rule 26 of the A.P.Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules, 2002. 5. The petitioners in W.P.No.26786 of 2022 and W.P.No.24005 of 2016 are the respondent Nos.7 and 8 respectively in W.P.No.33202 of 2018 and the respondent Nos.11 and 10 respectively in W.P.No.36811 of 2018. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.26786 of 2022 and W.P.No.24405 of 2016 submit that the petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.5-00 in S.No.172/2 of Rayapudi village which was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, Rayapudi vide proceedings in Rc.No.62/2015/Rayapudi dated 19.04.2017 for the purpose of laying the seed access road which goes across the church building constructed by the petitioner No.2 pursuant to the above said gift of the petitioner No.1. 7. Since the existing church building has been lost in the acquisition, the petitioner No.1 executed another gift deed vide document No.4022 of 2018 dated 01.08.2018 in favour of the petitioner No.2 for construction of a new church besides the existing Church in an extent of Ac.0-25 cents. 7. Since the existing church building has been lost in the acquisition, the petitioner No.1 executed another gift deed vide document No.4022 of 2018 dated 01.08.2018 in favour of the petitioner No.2 for construction of a new church besides the existing Church in an extent of Ac.0-25 cents. Then the petitioner No.2 made an application on 04.09.2019 for issuance of “no objection certificate” by the respondent No.2 (The District Collector, Guntur). Then the said respondent issued no objection vide proceedings in Rc.No.2059/2018-E1 dated 27.09.2018 to construct the Church adjacent to the existing church in the land belonging to the petitioner No.1 in an extent of Ac.0-25 cents exempting the same from the land pooling scheme. 8. There is an interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.33202 of 2018 dated 14.09.2018 as under: “Unless the respondent Nos.6 and 7 obtained permission from the District Collector to make construction of a church in the said property, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 shall not permit such construction by respondents.” 9. The petitioners herein filed vacate stay petition to vacate the above said interim orders dated 14.09.2018 in the above said writ petition stating that the petitioners herein did not start the construction of Church as on 14.09.2018 and the respondent No.3 therein that is the District Collector issued no objection certificate on 27.09.2018 and fire services department also issued clearance certificate dated 27.09.2018 permitting the petitioners herein to construct the Church. 10. Another interim order was passed in I.A.No.2 of 2018 in W.P.No.36811 of 2018 dated 12.10.2018 by this Court as under: “The petitioners contend that respondent Nos.10 and 11 are proceeding to make construction in the land in S.No.172/2 Rayapudi village without having any title to the said land and that NOC had been issued to the respondent No.2 on 27.09.2018 without verifying the title of the said land. It is also contended that the officials of the APCRDA have not granted any permission to respondent Nos.10 and 11 to make construction. There shall be interim direction as prayed for.” 11. The petitioners herein filed vacate stay petition against the above said orders dated 12.10.2018 stating that the petitioners herein obtained no objection certificate and clearing certificate by duly complying with the procedure established. There shall be interim direction as prayed for.” 11. The petitioners herein filed vacate stay petition against the above said orders dated 12.10.2018 stating that the petitioners herein obtained no objection certificate and clearing certificate by duly complying with the procedure established. The petitioner No.2 herein submitted building permission application dated 04.09.2018 to the respondent No.1 for granting permission to construct the church by paying the requisite fee of Rs.3,500/- vide challan dated 04.09.2018. During the pendency of the said application, the petitioners were granted no objection from the fire service department vide file No.4632/Gnt/DFO/2018 dated 27.09.2018. The petitioners submitted the required documents vide Rc.No.CRDA- 12029(50)/5/2018 dated 29.09.2018 through the letter dated 10.10.2018 by paying the required development fee amount of Rs.2,32,943/- vide challan dated 22.11.2018. The proceedings of the respondent No.2 dated 27.09.2018 granting no objection for construction of the Church is not one of the required documents mentioned by the CRDA vide Rc.No.CRDA- 12029(5))/5/2018 dated 29.09.20018 for grant of building permission for construction of the Church. When the petitioners herein applied with all the necessary requirements, the respondent No.1 herein (APCRDA) cannot withhold the grant of building permission for construction of the Church. 12. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.33202 of 2018 and 36811 of 2018 submits that the petitioners herein are the residents of Veerapanenipalem, Rayapudi Village, Tullur Mandal, and they are affected by the construction of a religious place where no Christian family lives in the vicinity. There are more than 300 families belonging to the Hindu Religion and the construction of huge structure for the Church without valid permission will create problems for them. Hence they are affected parties and have got locus standi to question the NOC given by the respondent No.2 in Rc.No.2059/2018-A1 dated 27.09.2018 for construction of the Church in S.No.172/2 of Rayapudi Village, Tullur Mandal, Guntur District. There is a dispute regarding the ownership of the property also. There is a Ac.5-00 of land in Survey No.172/2 belonging to one Mr.Viswanatha Rao, husband of the respondent No.11 (W.P.No.36811 of 2018) herein. He gifted Ac.0-25 cents of land in construction of Church in the year 2006 and the same was constructed without taking any permission from the authority which remained as illegal structure. Subsequently he sold away Ac.0-92 cents in the year 2014. He gifted Ac.0-25 cents of land in construction of Church in the year 2006 and the same was constructed without taking any permission from the authority which remained as illegal structure. Subsequently he sold away Ac.0-92 cents in the year 2014. He gifted various bits of land to an extent of Ac.2-70 cents after the year 2015. Later on Ac.0-60 cents was given for the land pooling and Ac.0-92 cents was acquired by the CRDA authorities. All these come to an extent of Ac.5-29 cents in toto. Whereas the original land held by him was Ac.5-00 cents only. Now his wife that is the 11th respondent herein donates Ac.0-25 cents of land in the year 2018 to the 10th respondent herein and they started construction of church. The said piece of land obviously belongs to the Government on which she has no authority to donate the same. Originally Ac.0-25 cents of land was taken by the authorities concerned for laying the seed access road and they paid compensation of Rs.60 lakhs. The original structure and the Ac.0-25 cents of that structure was taken away by the CRDA for the purpose of seed access road. Though it was an illegal structure, money was paid to them. As it is, there is no land available either to Mr.Viswanadha Rao or to his wife Deenamma (the 11th respondent herein) to give the same for the construction of a Church. 13. The Rayapudi Gram Panchayat falls under CRDA and any application for construction along with the proposed loan has to be received by the Gram Panchayat and it shall be sent to the CRDA which is a nodal agency having competency to permit any construction. Without any permission from the CRDA, no development activity is permitted. When the proposed structure is for public worship then the Collector has to examine the same by taking a decision. This decision has to be as per Rule 26(A) of the A.P.Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules, 2002. The petitioners herein lodged a protest by submitting a representation which is pending with the District Collector along with the order copy in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.33202 of 2018 dated 14.09.2018. He ought to have conducted the enquiry and considered their representation by applying his mind in the light of the provisions of Rule 26(A) of the A.P.Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules, 2002. 14. He ought to have conducted the enquiry and considered their representation by applying his mind in the light of the provisions of Rule 26(A) of the A.P.Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules, 2002. 14. As on today, there is no building plan approved by the Gram Panchayat and the CRDA. Simply an evasive no objection was given by the District Collector only on the ground that the earlier illegal structure was taken over for seed access road. The Tahsildar and the RDO did not furnish the correct information regarding the land acquired by the land acquisition officer for the purpose of seed access road. Thus the proceedings issued by the respondent No.2 herein in Rc.No.2059/2018-E1, dated 27.09.2018 giving no objection for construction of a Church in S.No.172/2 of Rayapudi village, is contrary to Rule 26(A) of the A.P.Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules, 2002. 15. The learned senior counsel in support of the above said contentions refers to the order of this court in W.P.No.9906 of 2021 dated 22.04.2021 which was disposed of directing the respondent Nos.2 and 5 therein not to permit or allow the respondent No.8 to conduct any acts of public worship in his house situated in D.No.6-13/1 of Bendamurlanka village, Allavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, unless and until appropriate permissions are granted under Rule 26 of lay out and building rules. This court disposed of the W.P.No.2062 of 2021 dated 22.04.2022 observing that as the building permission granted by the gram panchayat is consequent to the permission granted by the respondent No.2 therein in his proceedings dated 05.09.2020 the said building permission would also abide by the result of the decision taken by the respondent No.2 in relation to the question of whether permission can be granted under Rule 26. Till then, the said permission cannot be relied upon nor acted upon. 16. The learned counsel also relied upon the order of this court in W.P.No.17111 of 2016 dated 16.03.2023 wherein it was observed that the Collector has to conduct enquiry with regard to peace and other aspects of the locality by calling objections from the locals and also conducting gramasabha by taking recourse. 16. The learned counsel also relied upon the order of this court in W.P.No.17111 of 2016 dated 16.03.2023 wherein it was observed that the Collector has to conduct enquiry with regard to peace and other aspects of the locality by calling objections from the locals and also conducting gramasabha by taking recourse. It is only for the District Collector to decide whether this site is suitable for construction of a building meant for public worship or religious worship and then only the District Collector has to take appropriate decision with regard to suitability of the subject property for construction of a religious building. 17. In view of the above said rival contentions and decisions referred to, the only point for consideration is that whether the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.2059/2019-E1, dated 27.09.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 in W.P.No.36811 of 208 is valid? 18. A reading of the above said impugned proceedings of the respondent No.2 dated 27.09.2018 discloses that the existing church and its land to an extent of Ac.0-25 cents in S.No.172/2 of Rayapudi village, Tullur Mandal was acquired for the purpose of laying seed access road by paying compensation of Rs.60,46,912/- to the petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.26786 of 2021 and the respondent No.10 in W.P.No.36811 of 2018 vide cheque bearing No.784543 dated 25.06.2018. As the existing mandiram was taken for the above said public purpose, no objection for construction of new hosanna Mandir in an extent of Ac.0-25 cents in the same survey Number was given by the respondent No.2 under Rule 26 of the Rules as amended by G.O.Ms.No.376 dated 29.11.2012. Except that, the impugned proceedings does not assign any other reasons in tune with the above said rules which is as under: “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 the construction/development. [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];[ Added by G.O.Ms.No.376 dated 29.11.2012]” 19. As per the above said Rule, there shall be a prior approval of the Collector for construction of a building in any site for public worship. For giving such prior approval he shall form an opinion that it will not cause endanger to public peace and order. In case he forms an opinion that it may cause danger to the public peace and order, he can refuse such approval, that too, after giving an opportunity to the applicant to show cause. For the purpose of forming an opinion in the instant case, the District Collector has not considered the representation of the petitioners in W.P.No.33202 of 2018 and 36811 of 2018 and not called for any report from the Tahsildar, Tullur Mandal, Guntur District; Rayapudi Gram Panchayat, Tullur Mandal, Guntur District; and APCRDA. The impugned order as seen above does not disclose conducting of any enquiry in this behalf whether the land as claimed by the applicants for grant of NOC is available or not and whether the objections raised by the petitioners/objectors are valid or not. In the absence of conducting any enquiry in this regard with regard to the issuance of No Objection Certificate for the purpose of construction of a building for public worship, it does not amount to forming an opinion or exercising powers under Rule 26 of the above said Rules. Unless a proper enquiry is conducted on the application received, by way of giving opportunity to all the parties concerned, verification of the documents/record and the inspection of the subject site for the proposed construction there cannot be any other valid exercise either to allow or reject the said application seeking for No Objection Certificate. Since the above said impugned proceedings dated 27.09.2018 suffers from want of exercise of due procedure as explained above, the same is liable to be set aside. 20. Since the above said impugned proceedings dated 27.09.2018 suffers from want of exercise of due procedure as explained above, the same is liable to be set aside. 20. Accordingly, it is set aside holding that it is contrary to Rule 26 of the A.P.Gram Pnachyat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules, 2002 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.376 dated 29.11.2012. The respondent No.2 in W.P.No.26786 of 2022 and W.P.No.36811 of 2018 is directed to conduct enquiry afresh in terms of the above said rule by following the procedure as detailed above and appropriate final decision shall be taken on it as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioners in W.P.No.26786 of 2022 are directed to vacate and handover the existing Mandiram/Church to the respondent authorities concerned, which was acquired paying the compensation for the above said public purpose within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 21. Subject to the outcome of the decision of the District Collector under Rule 26 of the A.P.Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout & Building) Rules, 2002 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.376 dated 29.11.2012, the subsequent decisions can be taken by the authorities concerned in due course as per law on the application of the petitioners in W.P.No.26786 of 2022. 22. Accordingly, the W.P.Nos.26786 of 2022 and 36811 of 2018 are disposed of and W.P.No.24405 of 2016 and W.P.No.33202 of 2018 are dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any deemed to have been vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.