WP/26307/2006 of Kondeti Krishna Murthy Vs The Gram Panchayat, Vella Ramacandrapuram Manal, on 29 December 2006

ORDER:

1. This Court ordered Notice before admissionon 18-12-2006 and status quo was directed to bemaintained for a period of three weeks.

2. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent.

3. The Writ Petition is filed for a writ ofmandamus declaring the notice dated 12-12-2006 issuedby the respondent-Gram Panchayat directing thepetitioners to vacate their thatched houses situate inSy.No.257/1 of Vella village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal,East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and inviolation of the order passed by this Court and to passsuch other suitable orders.

4. Sri N.Siva Reddy, Counsel representing thewrit petitioners would submit that in the impugned notice ithad been specified as though this Court had directed the respondent to see that further proceedings are taken upfor vacation of the petitioners from their respective housesin question. The learned Counsel also pointed out to theorder made in W.P.No.15531/2006.

5. Sri M.Prabhakar Rao, the learned standingCounsel representing the respondent would submit thatthe prior Writ Petition was disposed of directing therespondents therein to follow the due process of Law inthe event of the petitioners being in possession of thesubject matter of the Writ Petition. The learned standingCounsel also would submit that the procedure to vacatethe houses as per Section 103 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act1994 had been followed and hence the action of the GramPanchayat cannot be found fault.

6. It is stated that all the petitioners belong toweaker sections of the society and they are not owningany property and are living by doing agricultural cooliework. It is stated that in the year 1998 the Governmentissued house site pattas to them each of an extent ofAc.0-03 cents in Sy.No.257/1 of Vella village and theyhave no dwelling houses and have been living inunhygienic conditions. It is also stated that when thepetitioners tried to erect thatched houses therespondent/Gram Panchayat filed W.P.No.19312/88seeking to cancel the pattas granted to them and the said Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dated 23-7-1996giving liberty to the Gram Panchayat to approach theDistrict Collector by filing an Appeal. It is stated thatrepresentations were made in this regard before the Jointcollector and ultimately pattas were cancelled and asagainst the said order the petitioners filed Revision beforethe Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, AndhraPradesh, Hyderabad and the same is presently pendingand posted for hearing on 29-12-2006. It is also statedthat when the respondent/Gram Panchayat had beentaking steps to evict the petitioners from patta land with aview to wreak vengeance against the petitioners they filedW.P.No.15331/2006 and initially this Court granted interimorder of status quo and after filing counter affidavit,allowed the Writ Petition by directing the respondent/GramPanchayat to follow the due process of law in the event ofthe petitioners being in possession of the subject matter ofthe Writ Petition by order dated 13-11-2006. Theoperative portion of the said order reads as hereunder :“In the light of the respective stands taken bythe parties and also in view of the fact that thematter is said to be pending before the ChiefCommissioner of Land Administration, A.P.,Hyderabad, it would be appropriate to dispose ofthe Writ Petition directing the respondents to followthe due process of law in the event of the petitioners being in possession of the subjectmatter of the Writ Petition.

Accordingly the Writ Petition is allowed to theextent indicated above. No order as to costs.”

Conclusion

It is also stated that after receipt of a copy of the order inthe said Writ Petition the respondent-Gram Panchayat instead of following the due process of law had chosen toissue notice of eviction asking the petitioners to vacatetheir thatched houses within seven days from the date ofreceipt of the notice. The said notice was received by the 16[th] petitioner on 13-12-2006 and similar notice copieshad been issued to the other petitioners as well. Themain grievance of the petitioners is that though theimpugned order is termed as notice, it is only a final ordergiving seven days time to the petitioners to vacate theirhouses.

7. The respondent filed counter affidavit whereinin para-2 it is averred that the land in R.S.No.257/1 ofVella village is admittedly a Grama Kantham and thesame was set apart for construction of Primary HealthCenter in the village for the benefit of all the villagers. Theproposal for such construction is in active considerationby the Government. Further specific stand is taken thatthe writ petitioners filed W.P.No.15331/2006 alleging that they are in possession of the property and the GramPanchayat is forcibly trying to evict them and this Court on25-7-2006 ordered status quo with regard to possessionand the Gram Panchayat filed counter affidavit specificallystating that they were never in possession of the propertyand the land is ear-marked for construction of PrimaryHealth Centre. Further specific stand is taken that byvirtue of the exparte order the writ petitioners forciblyoccupied the land during the pendency of the WritPetition. The Writ Petition was disposed of with a directionto the Gram Panchayat to follow the due process of lawfor evicting the writ petitioners if they are in possession ofthe property. It is also averred that as petitioners havebeen in illegal occupation of public property, a noticeunder Section 103(2) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994,in short hereinafter referred to as “Act” for the purpose ofconvenience, was issued on 12-12-2006 calling uponthem to vacate the premises within seven days from thedate of receipt of the notice. Further specific stand istaken in para-3 of the counter affidavit that it is a fact thathouse site pattas were granted in favour of somepetitioners in the year 1988 by the Mandal RevenueOfficer without notifying the Grama Kantham ascontemplated under Sections 80 and 104 of the Act. Therefore the said illegal house site pattas were cancelled by the Joint collector after following the due procedure oflaw on 1-6-1988. Thus the petitioners were never inpossession of the property. Further specific stand istaken that the Gram Panchayat is not aware of thependency of any matter in relation to the subject matter. Further specific stand is taken that it is false to say that thepetitioners are house less poor and they are having theirown houses in the village and with a view to grab thepublic property the petitioners resorted to forcibleoccupation under the guise of the orders of this Court. It isalso stated that the land occupied by the writ petitionerswas ear-marked for Primary Health Centre and all thevillagers have donated an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- forconstruction of the Primary Health Centre and proposalsare in active consideration before the Government and asthe land in question is meant for public purpose, thepetitioners have no manner of right whatsoever over theland and they are liable to be evicted forthwith.

8. Section 103 of the Act deals with Recovery ofpenalty and compensation for unauthorizedoccupation of land and sub-section (2) of Section 103specifies that the executive authority may, by noticerequire any person on whom a penalty is or may beimposed under sub-section (1) to vacate such land and to remove any building or other construction or anythingdeposited on it.

9. While disposing of the prior Writ Petitionalready referred to supra, this Court specified that it wouldbe appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing therespondents to follow the due process of law in the eventof the petitioners being in possession of the subject matterof the Writ Petition. The respondent had taken a specificstand that taking advantage of the interim order made bythis Court, certain structures had been raised. This Courtis not inclined to express any further opinion relating tothis aspect. It is not the case of the writ petitioners that inthe Revision said to have been filed as against the orderof cancellation of pattas by the Joint collector any interimorder as such had been made. The Gram Panchayat istaking a specific stand that they are not aware of any suchproceeding whatsoever. It is needless to say that in theevent of any such proceeding pending before the ChiefCommissioner of Land Administration, the same to bedisposed of at an early date. However, in the light of thefact that house site pattas had been cancelled in the year1988 the impugned notices issued under Section 103(2)of the Act as such cannot be found fault in any way. It isneedless to say that any further action which may betaken by the respondent/Gram Panchayat in this regard will be subject to the further orders which may be passedby the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. Except making these observations, nothing else can bedone at this stage.

10. Accordingly, with the above observations, theWrit Petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.

_________________

Justice P.S.Narayana

Date : 29-12-2006

AM