Telangana High Court
WP/27981/2007 of Kakani Gram panchayat, rep.by its Sarpanch, Vs The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur on 28 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No :27981 of 2007 DATED:28-12-2007 BETWEEN: Kakani Gram Panchayat, Rep., by its Sarpanch, Ch.Srinivasa Rao. Kakani village, Narasaraopet mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Guntur District & 4 others.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
WRIT PETITION No :27981 of 2007
BETWEEN:
DATED:28-12-2007
Kakani Gram Panchayat,Rep., by its Sarpanch,Ch.Srinivasa Rao.Kakani village, Narasaraopet mandal,Guntur District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
The District Collector,Guntur District & 4 others.
.....RESPONDENTS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learnedGovernment Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development;learned Government Pleader for Home and the learned counselappearing for the respondents.
2. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the actionof the 4[th] respondent in laying the road in Kakani Gram Panchayat,Narasaraopet mandal, Guntur District without prior approval orresolution of the petitioner Gram Panchayat, as illegal andarbitrary.
3. It is stated that the petitioner-Kakani Gram Panchayat filed arepresentation before the 1[st] respondent-District Collector, GunturDistrict complaining against the 4[th]respondent-MandalDevelopment Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad office, Narasaraopetin laying a road passing through the Gram Panchayat of thepetitioner. It is further stated that though the representation hasbeen filed on 17-11-2007 before the 1[st] respondent, he has not taken any actionagainst the said illegal action of the 4[th] respondent.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits thatunder Section 53 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’) all public roads in any village other than National Highways,State Highways and roads vesting in Zilla Parishad or MandalParishad shall vest in Gram Panchayat, and the Gram Panchayatalone is entitled to take steps to remove the encroachment toprevent unauthorized use of the road, but under Section 53(2) ofthe Act the Government may, after giving an opportunity to theGram Panchayat notify any road from the operation of the Act anysuch public road, sewer, drain, drainage work, tunnel or culvert.
5. There is no dispute that the public roads in anyvillage/Gram Panchayat other than the National Highways, StateHighways and roads vesting in Zilla Parishad and Mandal Parishadshall vest in the Gram Panchayat. It is not known whether the saidroad is vested in the Mandal Parishad or the Gram Panchayat asno material has been placed before this Court. If the road is vestedin the Mandal Parishad there cannot be any objection for thepetitioner for the development of the road by the MandalDevelopment Officer even if the road is vested in the GramPanchayat. I am unable to understand as to how the petitioner isaggrieved in the development of the road by the Mandal Parishad.Therefore, I am of the opinion that the said representation filed bythe petitioner before the 1[st] respondent on 17-11-2007 is misconceived and without any bona fide intention.
6. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as tocosts.
_________________
V.ESWARAIAH,J
28[th] December, 2007.Tsy