WP/26496/2006 of Meka Chalapathi Rao S/o Subba Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by Secretary, on 22 December 2006

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

W.P.No. 26496 of 2006

--22122006

Between:-

Meka Chalapathi Rao and five others.

Petitioners

And

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by itsSecretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabadand five others.

Respondents

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMW.P.No.26496 of 2006

Oral order:

The petitioners, in substance, seek declaration andenforcement of an easementary right over a Puntha (apath way) apparently belonging to Jetlapalem village,Pentapadu mandal, West Godavari district. Thepetitioners claim to be among about 2,500 ryots who areusing Puntha since immemorial for their agriculturaloperations and for ingress and egress to their fieldsthrough the said Puntha. They assert that the respondentNos. 1 to 4, in particular the fourth respondent has issued‘residential plot possession confirmation certificates’ tocertain purportedly landless poor persons on the Punthadepriving the petitioners and other ryots potentially of theireasementary right of user of the Puntha.

The petitioners allege that earlier lands of the fifthand sixth respondents were acquired for the purpose ofproviding house sites to the weaker sections of the villageby a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 27-06-2006 followed by a declaration under Section 6 ofthe Act dated 27-07-2006 duly dispensing with the enquiryunder Section 5-A of the Act by invoking an urgencyclause. However without proceeding with the aforesaidacquisition process, for reasons extraneous, therespondent Nos. 1 to 4 have now proceeded toallot/assign plots on the Puntha to the landless poorpersons and even without any orders of assignment,‘possession certificates’ were granted by the fourthrespondent, is the allegation.

The petitioners have also submitted arepresentation to the fourth respondent on 21-11-2006 notto disable them from the user of Puntha. On 21-11-2006,the fifth respondent requisitioned the fourth respondent tofurnish information as to the 132 pattas reported to havebeen issued for house sites in respect of the plots on thePuntha. The petitioners assert that despite therepresentation dated 21-11-2006, the fourth respondenthas not furnished the information.

In respect of the grievance as to the failure of thefourth respondent to furnish information despite the requisition dated 21-11-2006 under the provisions of the Right toInformation Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act, 2005’), thepetitioners are at liberty to pursue appropriateproceedings against the respondents for transgression ofthe provisions of the Act, 2005 including for prosecution ofthe fourth respondent as provided under the Act, 2005 forfailing to provide the information which the petitioners areentitled to have under the provisions of the Act.

In respect of the substantive grievance of thepetitioners that the Government and other officialrespondents have allotted plots to members of the weakersections of the society on the Puntha thus depriving themfrom right to ingress and egress to their fields therebytransgressing an easementary right of the petitioners andother ryots, the petitioners must more appropriatelypursue remedies before the civil court of competentjurisdiction by seeking declaration of the assertedeasementary right and seek appropriate reliefsconsequent on such substantive relief claimed. The writpetition is not an appropriate vehicle for assertion of aneasementary right. Neither the government nor any of theofficial respondents are immune to the claim of civil rightsby the petitioners nor are the official respondent Nos. 1 to4 beyond the jurisdiction of the civil court of competentjurisdiction. As the existence of an easementary right as claimed by the petitioners is substrated on a factualfoundation which could be potentially disputed, suchdisputed questions of fact must necessarily be determinedby the civil court of competent jurisdiction and not underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion

On the analysis above, the writ petition is dismissedwith liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appropriatealternative remedy. No costs.

____________________

GODA RAGHURAM, J

Dated:22-12-2006Pvks/*