Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Muthyalamma Ammavari Temple vs The State Of Ap on 17 March, 2020
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.6948 of 2020
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed inter alia seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to assign the Cart Track (Bandi daari) and gramakantam land admeasuring an extent of about Ac.0.60 cents in Survey No.59/1 of Satyavada village, East Kandrika, K.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, which is being used as Muthyalamma Ammavari Land as illegal, arbitrary etc., and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the enjoyment of the said property.
The Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of all the parties. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
The Writ Petitioner claims that an extent of 0.60 cents in S.No.59/1 of Satyavada village is the land of Muthyalamma Ammavari temple which was constructed 8 decades back in part of the land, the said temple has been renovated recently and that there are many coconut trees in the rest of the property and the yield is being used for the purposes of temple. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above mentioned land is classified as 'Gramakantam' in the revenue records and the land is in possession of the writ petitioner/temple. The learned counsel further submits that the 4th respondent came to the above said site and on enquiry informed that the above mentioned site is proposed for the purpose of allotment of house site pattas. The learned counsel submits that the land in question is classified as 'Gramakantam' land and the 2 Government/respondents have no power or authority to deal with the said land which exclusively vests with the grama panchayath. While placing reliance on the judgment of a Learned Single Judge of this Court dated 30.01.2020 in Writ Petition No.1675 of 2020, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ratio laid down in the said judgment applies to the present case also in as much as 4th respondent without jurisdiction is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the land which is classified as 'Gramakantam'. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel also placed reliance on the material filed along with the Writ Petition to fortify his contention that the land in question is 'Gramakantam' land.
The learned Government Pleader has not controverted the ratio laid down by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1675 of 2020.
As seen from the material on record, it is evident that the land in question is 'Gramakantam' land and it is deemed to have been vested in the grama panchayat unless a notification is issued under Section 58(2) of A.P.Panchayatraj Act, 1994 divesting the land on Government from gramapanchayat and as such, the respondents will have no jurisdiction in the matter. Though, the Learned Single Judge in the above referred judgment had dealt with the issues against the background of issuance of notice under Sections 7 and 6 of A.P.Land Encroachment Act, the ratio laid down is applicable in the context of 'Gramakantam' lands vis-à-vis the jurisdiction of the 4th respondent with regard to the lands vested in the grama panchayat.
In such view of the matter, following the ratio as laid down in W.P.No.1675 of 2020, the present Writ Petition is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. 3 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
Registry is directed to attach a copy of the order, dated 30.01.2020 in W.P.No.1675 of 2020 to this order.
_______________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J 17.03.2020 BLV 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.6948 of 2020 17.03.2020 BLV