WP/24706/2006 of Tipirisetty Peda Janakayya Vs Gram Panchayat, Ramapuram, on 26 December 2006

ORDER:

Heard Sri E.V.Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel representingwrit petitioners and Sri R.Prem Sagar, learned Standing Counsel,representing respondent.

2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaringNotice Nos.2/G.P.R./02-6, 3, 1, 8, 4, 10, 14 and 2, dated15.11.2006 of the respondent directing the petitioners to vacate theresidential houses constructed in survey No.81 of Ramapuramvillage, Chilukuru Mandal, Nalgonda District, treating it as gramakantam land even though it is Government poramboke land vested with the government under Section 58(1) of the A.P. PanchayatRaj Act, 1994 (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’ for thepurpose of convenience), as illegal, arbitrary and violative ofArticles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the provisions ofA.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and pass such other suitableorders.

3. It is averred by the writ petitioners that the petitioners areagricultural coolies and had constructed residential houses about15 years ago in survey No.81 of Ramapuram village, ingovernment poramboke land and they have been residing therewith families. It is also stated that they are not having any otherproperty except residential houses constructed by them andseveral others in survey No.81 of Ramapuram village. Specificstand is taken that inasmuch as the said land is governmentporamboke land, in view of the fact that the said land had not beentransferred to the Gram Panchayat, Ramapuram under Sectionunder Section 58(2) of the Act by notification as contemplatedunder the Act, the respondent has no jurisdiction to issueimpugned notice dated 15.11.2006 directing them to vacate thesaid land after demolishing their houses. It is further stated thatthe petitioners constructed their residential houses in an extent of100 to 200 square yards in survey No.81 of Ramapuram village,Chilukuru Mandal, Nalgonda District about 15 years ago and theyhave been residing with their families. Certain other factual detailsare narrated in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition.

4. A counter-affidavit, in detail, is filed wherein at paragraph 2 itis averred that in the year 2000 a resident of the village one AreRamanadam submitted a detailed representation to the DistrictCollector, Nalgonda that some villagers had occupied gramakantam land illegally and requested to take immediate action totake back possession of that land by evicting them. The DistrictCollector vide his letter No.1411/2000, dated 22.3.2000 directedthe Mandal Revenue Officer, Chilukur to conduct a detailedenquiry and submit a report and the Mandal Revenue Officer,Chilukur conducted a detailed survey and identified survey No.81was the grama kantam land and that land was occupied illegally bythe writ petitioners and submitted his report to the DistrictCollector, Nalgonda on 28.4.2000 to that effect. On 24.8.2001 and09.6.2002 the said Ramanatham again submitted representationsto the authorities requesting the government to take back thegrama kantam land from the writ petitioners and use that land forpublic purpose. The respondent gram panchayat sent notices toall the writ petitioners vide notice No.2/GPR/02, dated 16.8.2002,to evict the grama kantam land immediately, since all the writpetitioners attempted to make illegal constructions withoutobtaining any permission in the grama kantam land. But the writpetitioners did not submit any explanation to the notices issued bythe Gram Panchayat on 16.8.2002. Again on 9.10.2006 the saidAre Ramanatham made another representation to the GramPanchayat to occupy the grama kantam land immediately and usethat land for public purpose. The respondent-Gram Panchayatpassed a resolution unanimously on 7.11.2006 to evict all the writ petitioners who were in occupation of grama kantam land illegallyand accordingly issued notices to all the writ petitioners on15.11.2006 directing them to evict the said land by removing theunauthorized constructions made by them with their own expensesand inform the same to the Gram Panchayat in writing, otherwiseaction will be taken under Section 131 of the Act. Further specificstand is taken that inasmuch as these are encroachments ingrama kantam, notices were issued for removal of theunauthorized constructions within 15 days from the date of receiptof the notices.

5. Several other factual details are narrated and specific standis taken that the writ petitioners are not landless or houselesspersons as averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition. Further specific stand is taken that this being gramakantam land, the respondent is having every right to proceedfurther in accordance with law. Further specific stand is taken thateven if it is taken as government poramboke land, the necessaryparties are the District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer andthe Mandal Revenue Officer but they are not impleaded as partiesin the writ petition. Further specific stand is taken thatR.Ramanatham, a resident of Ramapuram is fighting to restore thegrama kantam land in the interest of the village since 22.3.2000and on his representation only the District Collector directed theMandal Revenue Officer to conduct a detailed enquiry and theenquiry report clearly goes to show that the writ petitionersillegally occupied the grama kantam land in survey No.81 ofRamapuram village, Chilukur Mandal, Nalgonda District.

6. In the light of the facts and circumstances, this Court is notinclined to express any opinion relating to applicability orotherwise under Section 58 of the Act referred to supra in the factsand circumstances. Further this Court is also not inclined toexpress any opinion whether the petitioners are landless andhouseless poor persons as averred by them or as asserted anddenied that they are not shown in the counter-affidavit filed by therespondent. However, inasmuch as it is stated that steps alreadyhad been initiated in accordance with procedure only, it is madeclear that the respondent not to disturb the possession of thepetitioners unless and until further due process of law is followed.

7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. It is made clearthat this order may not come in the way of the parties in pursuingother legal remedies, if any, available to them. No order as tocosts.

Date: December 26, 2006.BSB

___________________

P.S.NARAYANA, J.