WP/19834/2006 of K. Satyanarayana Reddy, Vs The Gram Panchayat, on 26 December 2006

-ORDER:

This Court ordered notice before admission on 22-9-2006 and granted status quo for a limited period, which isbeing extended from time to time.

2. Counter affidavits are filed by the 1[st] respondentand 2[nd] respondent.

3. The writ petitioners filed the present Writ Petition fora Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of therespondents in dispossessing the petitioners, who arelicense-holders under R.O.C.No.24/91 dt.22-3-93 in RSNo.84 of Kattavapadu village without following the dueprocess of Law as arbitrary, illegal and capricious andconsequently direct the respondents not to alter theAgricultural Bodi existed in RS No.84 of Kattavapaduvillage catering the irrigation needs of lands of petitionerssituated in RS No.73/2, 82/1 & 2 of Kattavapadu villageand pass such other suitable orders.

4. It is stated that the first petitioner is the absoluteowner and possessor of an extent of wet land of Ac.2.22cents in RS No.82 of Kattavapadu village and that he is inpeaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land bycultivating the same and the 2[nd] respondent issued Pattadar Pass Book bearing Nos.158234 for the said landin the name of the 1[st] petitioner. It is further stated that thesecond petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor ofwet land of Ac.0.52 cents in RS No.82/1 and an extent ofAc.1.11 cents in RS No.73/2 in Kattavapadu village andthe 2[nd] respondent issued Pattadar Pass Book bearingNo.147405 for the said lands in the name of the 2[nd]petitioner. It is also stated that first respondent being theowner of the land adjacent to RS Nos.73/2, 82/1 and 2 ofKattavapadu village, which is situated in RS Nos.84 and85 of Kattavapadu village, accorded license bearingNo.24/91 dated 22-3-1993 to raise coconut trees acrossthe Government land adjacent to Agricultural Bodi and thesaid license is in operation as on today and the petitionersare enjoying the said lands as lessees by paying feesfrom time to time under valid receipts. It is also furtherstated that RS No.84 of Kattavapdu village is an extent ofAc.4.14 cents and in the said land one Panta Kalva(Agricultural Bodi) at 28 links running from West to Eastadjacent to lands covered under RS Nos.73/2, 82/1 & 2 oflands situated in Kattavapadu village. The said Bodi wasalso shown in Field Measurement Book of respondentrecords and now the respondents are trying to alter thesaid Bodi by converting into Poramboke and intended to allot the converted land to landless poor persons. It isalso stated that the petitioners do not have any objectionfor distribution of Government Poramboke land to landlesspoor person but the respondents arbitrarily altering thePantakalva (Agriculture Bodi) from the existing place at 28links running from West to East to the lands of petitioners. It is further stated that the petitioners are licensees of landin RS No.84 of Kattavapadu village to raise coconut treesfrom 1993 onwards and there were no proceedings eitherto cancel or alter the said license. It is also stated that thefirst respondent had collected licence fee for the year2005-06. Several other factual details also had beennarrated.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, itis averred in para 2 that the Government had launchedIndiramma Programme providing house-sites to allWeaker Section people which is one of the objectives ofthe programme and Kattavapadu is one of the 10 villagesidentified under this programme in Iragavaram Mandal. Itis also stated that the Government land should bepreferred if available for the purpose of providing house-sites instead of acquisition of private land. It is furtherstated that there exists a Bhodi Poramboke in RS No.84measuring total extent of Ac.4-14 cents and an extent ofAc.1.14 cents were encroached by Ganta China Veeranna and two others of Kattavapadu village andpaddy crop was raised. It is also further stated that anextent of Ac.3.00 cents is available for providing house-sites and 118 beneficiaries were identified, lay out alsowas prepared. It is also stated that house-site pattas alsowere distributed to the beneficiaries pending approval ofconversion proposal. It is also stated that in northern andsouthern sides Bodi exists and the land surrounded bythese two, western side 1.14 of RS No.84 i.e., encroachedland and Eastern side RS No.71 i.e., Ac.3.00 cents usedfor house-site pattas, but still possession was not given tothe beneficiaries. It is also stated that the petitioners’apprehension is that the Bodi may be altered due to issueof pattas and handing over possession and tree pattaswhich were sanctioned to the coconut trees raised alongthe boundaries and within the Bodi Poramboke land willbecome useless and hence the petitioners approachedthis Court and filed the Writ Petition. It is also stated inpara 3 of the counter affidavit that it is an admitted fact thatthe first respondent being the owner of the lands inR.S.No.73/2, 82/1 and 2 of Kattavapadu (v), adjacent ofthe R.S.No.84 (land in question) and 85, accorded licenceto raise coconut trees in the adjacent land to AgriculturalBodi and as such they are enjoying the said lands by paying fees. It is also stated that the tree pattas weregranted by the Group Executive Officer and granting oftree patta does not mean granting of permanent right overthe land. It is further stated that condition No.9 of the pattaclearly states that the whenever either Gram Panchayat orState Government or Central Government wants the landfor which licence was given, for some other purpose, theExecutive Officer has every right to take back thepossession of the land by cancelling the tree patta withoutpaying any compensation and there is no right for thePattadar to claim compensation. It is also further statedthat now the Government is giving top priority to providehouse-sites under Indiramma Programme and so pattaswere issued in Government land in R.S.No.84. It is furtherstated that the petitioners cannot come to a conclusionthat the distance between their lands and agricultural Bodiis 28 links without conducting proper survey by surveyor and as per the measurements in the FMB only the landAc.3-00 (Bodi poramboke) will be separated andpossession will be handed over to pattadars. It is furtherstated that the petitioners’ apprehension of altering bodi isbaseless and as per FMB only possession will be handedover.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2[nd] respondent, it

6. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2[nd] respondent, it is stated that it is a fact that licence bearing No.24/91dt.22-3-1993 was granted in favour of the first petitioner toraise coconut trees across the Government land, adjacentto agricultural Bodi i.e., Panta Kalva. It is also averred inpara 6 of the counter affidavit of R.2 that the said licencedoes not give any right to the petitioners over the land andas per condition No.9 of the licence, it is made clear thatwhenever the said land is required by the GramPanchayat or the State Government or the CentralGovernment, the land can be taken over by theGovernment without payment of any compensation andthe licence-holder does not have any right to claimcompensation. It is also averred that the Government hascome out with a policy decision to provide house-sitepattas to the weaker Sections and Kattavapadu villagewas identified and selected for providing house-sites tothe weaker section persons and therefore, theGovernment had identified R.S.No.84, where there is aGovernment land, for providing house-sites to the weakersections and in fact, house-site pattas were issued infavour of 118 beneficiaries and possession has to bedelivered to them. Further specific stand is taken that infact, no such steps were undertaken by the respondentsseeking to alter the agricultural Bodhi and henceabsolutely there are no merits in the Writ Petition. Further stand is taken that in the light of the status quo ordermade by this Court, though the beneficiaries wereidentified and pattas were granted to them, thepossession could not be delivered to them.

7. In the light of the facts and circumstances wellexplained, especially condition No.9 of the licence andalso the further stand taken that the respondents are notcontemplating to alter the Agricultural Bodhi, this Court isof the considered opinion that the Writ Petition bedisposed of recording the stand taken by the respondentsthat at present the respondents are not intending to alterthe Bodhi and the same is hereby recorded.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Noorder as to costs.

26[th] December, 2006

smr

________________

Justice P.S.Narayana