ORDER : This Writ Petition for a mandamus is filed to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.4 to 7 in taking action for construction of the Church which is a religious structure, without prior approval of the District Collector, as illegal and consequently prayed to pass appropriate orders as deemed fit by the Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5 and Smt. G. Amulya Spencer, learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.8 to 11. 3. As per the facts culled out from the pleadings in the Writ Petition and also from the submissions made at length by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality and learned counsel for unofficial respondents, father-in-law of respondent No.8 has constructed a tiled roof building and thereafter the 8th respondent has renovated the same as per the approved plan which contains a provision for prayer hall. 4. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that for the purpose of making any religious construction like Churches, a permission from the District Collector, who is the 4th respondent herein, is essential and sin qua non for constructing a Church and without obtaining any such permission from the District Collector that the father-in-law of the 8th respondent has constructed the Church in the said house on the top of it and now the renovation process is being taken up by the said Church also in the said house. 5. The 5th respondent – Municipality has filed counter alleging that only a family prayer hall is available in the house in question, of respondent No.8 and to have a family prayer hall in the house of the 8th respondent that no permission from the District Collector is required. But it is pleaded that the Municipality found certain violations in constructing the said house now in renovating the said house and earlier a provisional notice was issued to the 8th respondent pointing out the said deviations and thereafter a final order was passed for demolition of the structures that are made illegally in deviation of the approved plan and the said process is now pending. 6. 6. The counter of Revenue i.e., respondent No.6 is filed alleging that the site on which the present house is constructed belongs to Grama Kantam and the 8th respondent or her family members have no right to make any such construction on the said Grama Kantam and that a notice was issued to the site owner calling for the explanation for occupying the Grama Kantam and making illegal construction on the same and the said process of taking appropriate action is pending in this regard. 7. Unofficial respondent No.8 filed counter alleging that the house in question was constructed long back by the father-inlaw of the 8th respondent after obtaining prior approval from the Municipality and the plan that was approved consists of a prayer hall and the same was constructed as per the approved plan and it does not require any permission from the District Collector as alleged by the petitioner. It is further pleaded that the 8th respondent has now taken up the process of renovating the said house after obtaining necessary approval from the Municipality and the renovation of the house is being carried on strictly as per the approval given by the Municipality and there are no deviations. 8. As can be seen from the case pleaded by the writ petitioner, the Writ Petition is founded on the ground that a Church was constructed by the unofficial respondents, which is a religious construction and as per G.O.Ms.No.376, dated 29.11.2012 that a prior approval of the District Collector is required for construction of the said Church and as the said Church was constructed without any such prior approval from the District Collector, the said construction is illegal. Therefore, he sought for a declaration regarding inaction of the respondents in taking action against the said construction of the Church. 9. As can be seen from G.O.Ms.No.376, dated 29.11.2012, it reads thus: “In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with clause (xvii) of sub-section (2) of section 268 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act 1994 (Andhra Pradesh Act 13 of 1994), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby makes the following amendment to the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 and as subsequently amended from time to time. AMENDMENT 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” 10. A perusal of the aforesaid G.O. makes it clear that 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 it is in the opinion of the District Collector that use of the site for the proposed construction of the building is likely to endanger public peace and order and after giving an opportunity to the applicant to show cause against such refusal. Therefore, it is clear from the aforesaid G.O. that permission of the District Collector for construction of any building for public worship or for religious purpose is required only if it is in his opinion that the use of the said site for the said construction of the building is likely to endanger public peace and order. When he is of the opinion that there is a likelihood of endangering the public peace and order then only he has to reject approval or permission for such construction. This G.O. was issued in the year 2012 i.e., on 29.11.2012. Now it is relevant to note that subsequently memo, dated 06.01.2022, was issued by the Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, which reads thus at para No.2 to 4: “2. In this context, it is to clarify that earlier as per the Schedule III, AP Municipalities Act, 1965, no site shall be used for the construction of a building intended for public worship or religion 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. 3. 3. However, the building rules prescribed in Schedule – III of the A.P. Municipalities Act 1965 is not in operation as the entire section has been omitted by Act 37 of 2008. Therefore, no amendment is required to A.P. Municipalities Act 1965 with regard to dispensing with requirement of obtaining NOC from the District Collector while granting building permission for religious structures, and action may be taken by Sanctioning Authority under section 202 of A.P. Municipalities Act read with G.O.Ms.No.119 Municipal Administration, Dt.28.03.2017 and its Amendments. 4. Therefore, all the officers concerned are requested to take necessary action accordingly while dispensing with building permissions for religious structures.” 11. So, at appears from the aforesaid memo that a clarification has been issued stating that as the building rules prescribed in Schedule III of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 is not in operation in view of the fact that the entire section has been omitted by Act 37 of 2008 that no amendment is required to A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 with regard to dispensing with requirement of obtaining NOC from the District Collector while granting building permission for religious structures. It is further stated that the action may be taken by the sanctioning authority under Section 202 of A.P. Municipalities Act read with G.O.Ms.No.119 of Municipal Administration, dated 28.03.2017. 12. Therefore, as per the aforesaid memo, dated 06.01.2022, it is evident that no NOC is required to be issued by the District Collector even for the purpose of constructing a religious structure anywhere in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now contend that the present house or the prayer hall has been constructed without prior approval of the District Collector. Moreover, the original house was constructed long back about 31 years and by that time no such G.O. was in existence, which requires prior approval of the District Collector. The G.O. was subsequently issued on 29.11.2012 and subsequent to issuance of memo, dated 06.01.2022, even the said requirement of prior approval of the District Collector is not required. Further, in view of the said memo even for taking up of renovation work also, no approval of the District Collector is required. 13. However, a perusal of the pleadings of the official respondents i.e., Municipality and Revenue shows that the case has completely taken a twist. Further, in view of the said memo even for taking up of renovation work also, no approval of the District Collector is required. 13. However, a perusal of the pleadings of the official respondents i.e., Municipality and Revenue shows that the case has completely taken a twist. The Revenue contends that the said building was constructed in a Grama Kantam land and unofficial respondents have no right over the same and the Municipality contends that there are certain deviations in construction of the building and action was initiated in this regard. Since this is not the issue involved in this writ petition as per the case pleaded by the petitioner, there is no need to go into the said issue of the alleged violations that are pointed by the official respondents in this regard. If the site on which the house was constructed belongs to Grama Kantam, then the Revenue is at liberty to proceed further according to law and if the building in question is being constructed or renovated in violation of the approved plan, the Municipality is at liberty to proceed further in this regard according to law. Therefore, leaving the said issue to be considered by both the Municipality and Revenue as per the contentions raised by them in their pleadings, in view of the fact that at present no approval of the District Collector is required even for the purpose of constructing a religious structure like Church etc., observing the same, this Court is of the considered view that the Writ Petition can be disposed of. 14. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, as it is now made clear from the memo, dated 06.01.2022, that no approval or NOC is required to be issued by the District Collector for the purpose of constructing any religious structures like Church etc., the Writ Petition is closed. However, both the Revenue and Municipality Departments are at liberty to proceed further as per the case pleaded by them in their pleadings, by following due process of law. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.