Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
H. Ramanna Kunti Ramappa, vs The State Of A.P. on 24 July, 2020
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
W.P. No.9280 of 2020
O R D E R:-
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking to declare the Urgent Notice dated 19.05.2020 issued by 4th respondent - Tahsildar directing the petitioners to handover the possession of the land in an extent of 36 x 33 Square yards in Sy.No.391 (Gramakantam land) of Holagunda village and Mandal, Kurnool District to the respondents, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to interfere with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in long possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of 36 x 33 Square yards each in Sy.No.391 (Gramakantam land) of Holagunda village and Mandal, Kurnool District which was assigned to them in the year 2013, and their possession is not in dispute. He submits that the land in Sy.No.391 is classified as Gramakantam wherein bricks unit is being run and the petitioners are regularly paying cist (tax) to the Gram Panchayat. He contends that even as per the impugned notice, the land in question is Gramakantam and the respondents have no authority to exercise power to evict the petitioners and the impugned Urgent Notice is liable to be set aside.
2 NJS,J wp_9280_ 2020 Whereas, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents, has contended that Gram Panchayat is competent to exercise power on all public roads, poramboke, etc. in terms of Section 53 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and without impleading the Gram Panchayat, the writ petition is not maintainable. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.187, dated 27.05.2015, issued by Revenue (ASSN.I) Department.
As seen from the material on record, the petitioners are in possession of the subject land and urgent notice was issued by the 4th respondent directing them to vacate and handover possession of the property to the respondents. A perusal of the impugned notice Column No.3 of schedule makes it clear that the land is classified as Gramakantam. Therefore, such gramakantam is deemed to have been vested on the Gram Panchayat on its constitution in terms of Section 53 of A.P Panchayat Raj Act and it is for the Gram Panchayat to take any action in respect of the said land.
Be that as it may, it is submitted that the issue is covered by an order of a Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1675 of 2020 dated 30.1.2020 and the present writ petition can be disposed off in terms of the said order. In the said writ petition, the Learned Judge while dealing with proceedings under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, by a detailed order set aside the same and left it open to the Gram Panchayat to take appropriate steps. Though 3 NJS,J wp_9280_ 2020 in the present case it is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of concerned Gram Panchayat, the same is not tenable in as much as the impugned notice itself refers to land in question as Gram Kantham and respondent No.4 have no authority or jurisdiction in respect of the same. Further, the concerned authorities would always be entitled to initiate action in accordance with law in the event of any violations, but cannot assume jurisdiction not vested with them. Accordingly, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the Urgent Notice dated 19.05.2020 issued by the 4th respondent by declaring the same as without jurisdiction and leaving it open to the Gram Panchayat to take appropriate steps. There shall be no costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J 24.07.2020 bcj