Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mookala Srihari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 April, 2023
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.19477 of 2021
Between:-
Mookala Srihari and another .... Petitioners
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented
by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District
and Others. ..... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Kishore Reddy
Counsel for the respondents : G.P. for Revenue,
Mr. I.Koti Reddy,
Standing Counsel
Mr.K.Subrahmanyam,
Mr.P.Vivek
ORDER:
Heard Mr.A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondent Nos.1 to 4, Mr.I.Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent, Mr.P.Vivek and Mr.K.Subrahmanyam representing the respondent Nos.6 and 7 respectively.
2. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents particularly respondent Nos.3 to 5 in not protecting the land situated in S.No.68 of Pakalapadu Village, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District from the respondent Nos.6 and 7, 2 who are making illegal and unauthorised constructions without obtaining any permission from respondent No.5 as illegal and failure to discharge the executive functions conferred on them and for a consequential direction to respondents 3 to 5 to restrain the respondents 6 and 7 from making illegal and unauthorised constructions in an extent of Ac.0.08 cents in the said survey number.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that respondents 6 and 7 are making constructions in the Government land which is known as 'Gramakantam' in Survey No.68 of Pakalapadu Village and there is a failure on the part of the official respondents in discharging the executive duties and functions conferred on them.
4. Relying on the material filed along with the writ petition mainly, the information obtained under Right to Information Act, the learned counsel in elaboration contends that even as per the details furnished by the Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent-Gram Panchayath, it is clear that the land in Survey No.68 of an extent of Ac.8.99 cents is a 'Gramakantam land' and despite the said position and though it was brought to the notice of the official respondents that the 6 th and 7th respondents are 3 making constructions in a part of the said land, no action was initiated restraining them from making illegal and unauthorized constructions in the Gramakantam land which belongs to the Government. The learned counsel also submits that the respondents 6 and 7 infact, are raising constructions without obtaining permission from the 5 th respondent-Gram Panchayat. While stating that the 6th respondent had instituted a suit O.S.No.211 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge at Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam, the learned counsel further submits that under the guise of the said suit, unofficial respondents are continuing their unauthorised construction activity by encroaching upon the Government land. He submits that as a duty is cast upon the official respondents and the 5th respondent-Gram Panchayat to protect the land which belongs to Government and as they are not taking any steps against the respondents 6 and 7 from raising constructions in the Government land, the petitioners having failed to secure any positive response, despite making representations to the authorities and having left with no other alternative remedy, filed the present writ petition.
4
5. The learned counsel also places reliance on the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(PIL) Nos.150 of 2019 & 31 of 2022 dated 16.09.2022 in support of his contentions and seeks appropriate directions by allowing the writ petition.
6. Opposing the said submissions, it is contended on behalf of the 6th respondent that the Gramkantam land is not a Government land, not vested with the Government and therefore, the petitioners' contention cannot be accepted. He submits that the 6th respondent purchased the land in question for valuable consideration vide document No.4140 of 2018 and he is in valid possession and enjoyment of the same. He also submits that the 6th respondent submitted a plan for approval of the 5th respondent and therefore the allegation that constructions have been made without obtaining permission is not tenable. In so far as contention with regard to O.S.No.211 of 2018 is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the said suit was filed by the 6th respondent against writ petitioners by arraying them as defendants 2 and 3 and the petitioners instead of defending the said suit, filed the present writ petition, making baseless allegations and with malafide intention. Making the said 5 submissions, the learned counsel seeks to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the 7th respondent contended that previously one of the associates of the writ petitioners filed W.P.No.10702 of 2021 and having failed to secure orders in the said writ petition, the same was withdrawn and thereafter the present writ petition is filed with the similar relief as sought for in the above referred writ petition. He submits that the various allegations made by the writ petitioners are untenable and without any valid basis. He submits that the respondent No.7 as stated in the counter-affidavit has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject matter property for the last several decades and property/hut in which the respondent No.7 is residing was assessed to tax by the 5 th respondent-Gram Panchayat. He further submits that the 7th respondent after obtaining permission, submitted a building plan for construction of house to the 5th respondent and the same was sanctioned on 03.01.2022 after verifying all the requisite records and satisfying that the land in possession of the 7th respondent is a private land. He submits that the contention that the Gramakantam land is a Government land, is misconceived and further that the orders of 6 the Hon'ble Division Bench referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the present case, as the 7th respondent is not an encroacher, but owner of the subject matter property and even assuming without conceding, the said decision would be applicable to the cases where the lands of any Department/Government are encroached upon unauthorizedly. Referring to the Memo dated 14.11.2022 and the material filed along with the same, the learned counsel would submit that in fact, the 1st petitioner himself had constructed house bearing Door No.5-76, without approval of plan by the Gram Panchayat and the writ petition by such a party, merits no consideration by this Court.
8. Relying on the decisions reported in Karri Raghavulu v. Principal Secretary, Registration & Stamps Department and Others1, Bhavani Mahila Trust(BMT) v. State of A.P.2 and P.Raja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh3, learned counsel submits that the land which is classified as 'Gramakantam' cannot be treated as 'Government land' and urges for dismissal of the writ petition.
1 (2015) 3 ALT 215 2 (2022) 4 ALT 402 3 2022 SCC OnLine AP 1021 7
9. Learned Standing Counsel for the 5 th respondent-Gram Panchayat referring to the averments made in the counter- affidavit made his submissions to the effect that the writ petition is filed in view of the civil disputes between the parties, to which the Gram Panchayat is no way concerned. He submits that the Gram Panchayat granted building permissions to the 6 th and 7th respondents by following due procedure and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. On an appreciation of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the relief sought for, the grievance of the petitioners is that the unofficial respondents are making constructions in the Gramakantam land, which according to them, vests with the Government and such constructions are being made without obtaining permission from the 5th respondent-Gram Panchayat.
11. The issue as to whether the Gramakantam land is government property or Gram Panchayat property fell for adjudication in a catena of cases. In Sigadapu Vijaya v. State 8 of Andhra Pradesh4, the petitioners therein approached the Court as the registration authorities were refusing to register transactions relating to Gramkantam lands on the ground that the Gramakantam lands are Government lands. After an extensive review of the judgments, the learned Judge held that "occupied Gramakantam by its nature or classification does not belong to the Government to include the Gramakantam in the prohibitory list."
12. Referring to the said judgment and other decisions, i.e., Banne Gandhi v. District Collector5 and Bayya Mahadeva Sastry v. State of Andhra Pradesh6, a learned Judge in Bhavani Mahila Trust's case, held that "occupied Gramakantam land is not the property of the Grama Panchayat to invoke the provisions of either Section 98 or 103 of A.P.Panchayath Raj Act, 1994."
13. In Bayya Mahadeva Sastry's case referred to supra, a learned Judge of this Court after referring to a catena of cases held that "Gramakantam land whereon the houses are 4 2015 (4) ALT 296 5 2007 (4) ALT 550 6 2020(4) ALT 250 9 constructed or intended to be constructed does not vest with either the Government or the Gram Panchayath."
14. In the light of the said decisions, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 'Gramakantam land' is 'Government land' cannot be accepted and the same is therefore rejected.
15. The other contention is that the unofficial respondents are making constructions without obtaining permission from the 5th respondent-Gram Panchayath, is also liable to be rejected in view of the specific assertion in the counter-affidavit filed by the 5th respondent-Gram Panchayath, wherein it is categorically stated that building permissions were granted to the 6 th respondent on 23.04.2019 and to the 7th respondent on 03.01.2022, after verification of the documents.
16. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(PIL).Nos.150 of 2019 and 31 of 2022, in the considered opinion of this Court, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The material on record including the certificate issued by the 4th respondent dated 27.08.2021 and no 10 objection certificate issued by the 5th respondent to the 7th respondent for construction of house would go to show that the 7th respondent is in valid possession and enjoyment of the property and there is no unauthorised encroachment of land as alleged.
17. In view of the aforementioned conclusions, the relief sought for by the petitioners merits no consideration and the writ petition is therefore dismissed. However, it is made clear that in the event the 6th and 7th respondents are making any constructions contrary to the permissions obtained by them, the 5th respondent would be at liberty to take appropriate action, strictly in accordance with Law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
NINALA JAYASURYA, J
Date: .04.2023.
BLV
11
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
W.P.No.19477 of 2021
Date: .04.2023
BLV