Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Cbcnc vs Thummala Krishna Rao1 Which Reads Thus on 19 August, 2025
::1::
APHC010063682024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 3598/2024
Between:
1. THE CBCNC, KODURU,, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REV
D.KHANTHA RAO, S/O. GABRIAL, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
OCC- PASTER, R/O. KODURU V AND M, KRISHNA
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, KODURU, KODURU MANDAL, KRISHNA
DISTRICT.
5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KODURU MANDAL,
KRISHNA DISTRICT.
6. THE SECRETARY, KODURU PANCHAYATI, KODURU MANDAL,
::2::
KRISHNA DISTRICT.
7. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KODURU
MANDAL, KRISHAN DIST.,.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that
in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High
Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate Writ or Direction declaring the action of the Respondents
in proceeding with the construction of the alleged multi-purposes
building on the Petitioners land without following the due process of
law and without issuing any notice as illegal, arbitrary and against the
settled principles of law and in violation of the provisions of Act-30 of
2013 and against of the settled principles of Law and consequently
direct the Respondents not to proceed with further constructions in the
Petitioner's land in RS. NO.680/13A to an extent of Ac.0.09 OUT OF
17 CENTS, situated at KODURU Village and Mandal, without
following due process of law, and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SREENIVASULU PODILI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja
Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra
3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV
4. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM
PANCHAYAT)
::3::
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No.3598 of 2024
This Court made the following
ORDER:
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"..to issue a Writ Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proceeding with the construction of the alleged multi-purposes building on the Petitioner's land without following the due process of law and without issuing any notice as illegal, arbitrary and against the settled principles of law and in violation of the provisions of Act-30 of 2013 and against the settled principles of Law and consequently direct the Respondents not to proceed with further constructions in the Petitioner's land in RS.No.680/13A to an extent of Ac.0.09 cents out of Ac.0.17 cents, situated at Koduru Village and Mandal, without following due process of law, and pass..."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Church is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 2001 vide Registration No.16/48-49 and it has been working for welfare of the Christian community in all respects. The Baptist Field Council is an ancient society and is in existence since the year 1904-1916. While so, the 2nd respondent issued house site pattas and title deeds in favour of the Church vide House Site Title Deed dated 08.08.1904 by the then Tahsildar, Avanigadda, to the petitioner's Church for its usage and ::4::
development to their community including the educational purpose to an extent of Ac.0.04 cents. Thereafter, the revenue authorities granted house pattas for the house sites patta certificate dated 01.07.1916 to an extent of Ac.0.09 cents and also allotted site for school building to an extent of Ac.0.04 cents and all are situated at 9th Ward of Koduru Village and Mandal.
3. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner society was assigned a total extent of land admeasuring Ac.0.17 cents in the year 1904-1916, situated at Koduru Village and Mandal towards religious/community necessity of the Christian Community and for construction of a Church as well as Elementary School. In compliance of the object of alienation, the petitioner society got constructed a Church and also Elementary School and Pastor's house within the said extent of land in the year 1940. Since then the Society has been imparting primary education through the Primary School to the children of Christian community. As such, the petitioner society has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property more than 120 years.
4. It is also contended that there is an Elementary School under the name and style of "CBCNC School" established by the petitioner ::5::
society herein and the same was recognized in the year 1940 by the then District Education Officer, Machilipatnam vide proceedings dated 14.10.1940. The said fact was confirmed by the then Head Master of the school which was filed herein along with material papers. It is further contended that due to heavy cyclone the subject Elementary School was collapsed, but the pastor's house as well as Church are intact till today. The petitioner society got constructed temporary constructions for imparting primary education to the community people. Due to the paucity of funds, pakka RCC buildings were not taken place at subject land.
5. It is further claimed that taking advantage of the same the respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein are trying to evict the petitioner from the subject land and make multi-storied buildings other than for the purpose of education for which the said land was assigned is contrary to settled proposition of law.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that since the subject land was assigned by way of patta by the then Deputy Tahsildar in the year 1904-1916 and having admitted the possession of the petitioner society in respect of Church and Pastor's house since 100 years, they cannot evict the petitioner by way of summary ::6::
procedure without following due procedure as contemplated by invoking appropriate legal proceedings before Court of law or under the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "Act, 30 of 2013").
7. He further denied the contention of the 4th Respondent that the Elementary School had been running in the ground floor of the Cyclone shelter constructed by the Government without there being any permission from 1978 till 2016 is contrary to the facts and utter false. He also contends that having categorically admitted that the CBCNC Church and Pastor's house are situated at the subject land but denied the assignment/alienation and possession in favour of the petitioner society is contrary to the assignment patta granted which was attached to the writ petition. However, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land since 120 years. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be evicted without following due process of law on the guise that part of the land which is under the occupation of the Elementary School is vested with the 6th Respondent - Gram Panchayat and Gram Panchayat is to be permitted to deal with the subject School premises or any other public ::7::
purpose is also contrary to the nature of the land and also terms of the assignment patta for which the subject land was assigned in favour of the petitioner society.
8. On the other hand, the 4th respondent filed counter-affidavit wherein it is stated at para-4 that the church is in good condition, prayers are being performed in the said Church, there is no necessity to construct Church and quarter for the Pastor at present. It is correct to say that the CBCNC Church and Pastor's residential house are in possession of the petitioner society but however, the land which is in the possession of the petitioner is never assigned to him and as of now respondents are not disturbing petitioner's possession. It is also contended in the counter-affidavit that as per the representation filed by the petitioner on 08.01.2024 was disposed of by the Tahsildar, Koduru by issuing an endorsement in Rc.B.40/2024, dated 27.03.2024. In the said representation, the petitioner had requested to stop construction of Multipurpose Community Hall at the site belongs to CBCNC. Hence, the petitioner was requested to file valid documentary evidences to the effect that the site where it is proposed for construction of Multipurpose Community Hall belongs to CBCNC.
Copies of endorsements are enclosed with the material papers of the counter-affidavit. Further, it is contended that the petitioner filed ::8::
representation No.KRI202401292883 in Spandana (PGRS) programme on 29.01.2024 and to the 3rd respondent-District Collector. At the directions of the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent has disposed of the representation on 16.02.2024 by issuing an endorsement to the petitioner, as the Collector, Krishna has marked the said Spandana (PGRS) representation to the 4th respondent herein for its disposal.
9. The 6th Respondent - Gram Panchayat filed counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that the Sy.No.680/13A is admeasuring a total extent of Ac.5.98 cents and out of which an extent of Ac.0.10 cents of the subject property is Government property and is recorded as Gram Kantam in Revenue Records which is vacant at present. It is further contended in the counter that the petitioner is no way concerned to this property and more so the property is within the possession of the Government and at the subject property there was a "Cyclone Shelter"
which was constructed earlier in the year 1978 and got repaired during 2007 by the 6th respondent with an amount of Rs.95,000/- (Rupees ninety five thousand only). Due to its dilapidated condition it was dismantled in the year 2018 for which an open auction was conducted and got the building dismantled by the auction winner by paying Rs.42,000/- (Rupees forty two thousand only) to the 6th respondent.
::9::
Ever since the land is kept vacant and recently District Collector vide Proc Lr.Rc.No.49/CSR/Dy.SO-2/2022, dated 30.12.2022 gave orders to use the subject land for construction of community hall which can be used for public purpose.
10. It is also contended by the 6th respondent that the 6th respondent has no role in respect of subject property, except passing a resolution No.34 on 26.07.2022 to make use of the subject property for the construction of proposed Community hall, and praying this Hon'ble Court to pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice.
11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue as well as learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat reiterated the contentions as made in their respective counter-affidavits. They further argued that there is an existing cyclone shelter shed which was constructed in the year 1978, and later in the year 2007 it got repaired with the funds of 1st respondent i.e., Rs.95,000/- but the said shelter was dismantled in the year 2018. Therefore, the petitioner cannot plead that the extent of land Ac.0.09 cents which was said to have been assigned for establishment of an Elementary School for the benefit of the community belongs to petitioner as it was already vested with the 6th respondent-gram panchayat by the year 1978 itself and by constructing a cyclone shelter shed with the financial assistance of the ::10::
1st respondent. Therefore, the petitioner cannot plead its possession against the subject extent of land i.e., Ac.0.09 cents which was meant for public purpose. Now the said extent of land is vacant land, as such the 2nd respondent being a competent authority directed for construction of community hall since it is vested with the 6th respondent - gram panchayat.
12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and perused the material placed before this Court.
13. As per Ex.P4 filed along with Writ Petition dated 08.08.1904 and 01.07.1916 reveals that the subject land was assigned in favour of the petitioner society for the purpose of house sites and also for construction of school building. It appears that the petitioner society has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land by constructing a Church and Pastor's house and also by establishing an Elementary School. The establishment of school also substantiated by way of evidence of proceedings of recognition of the school issued by the District Education Officer dated 14.10.1940 and one or two certificates issued in favour of students in the year 2002 and also statement of Head Master who worked as Head Master from the year 1989 to September 2016 dated 02.04.2024.
::11::
14. It is further admitted in the statement of the Head Master that a school is in existence in the ground floor and a community hall is existing in upper floor of the school building. Therefore, the evidence filed by the petitioner society reveals that the subject extent land including the land occupied by the school has been in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner society since from the date of assignment. The fact remains that the 4th respondent also admitted the possession of the petitioner in respect of pastor's house as well as Church. In the year 1978 they got constructed cyclone shelter in the school premises since there was no shelter to cater the cyclone affected people with the funds of the public exchequer, but no documentary evidence was filed along with the counter-affidavit.
15. On perusal of the entire material placed on record, which indicates that the petitioner society admittedly has been in possession and enjoyment of the entire subject land and it has been running Church continuously till date but school was continued upto 2016 as per the statement of the then Head Master of the school.
16. It is also observed that the premises of the school is not only for the purpose of school, it is also make use as community hall as stated by the Head Master and the same is in dilapidated condition and it was ::12::
dismantled in the year 2018. But it is stated by the 4th respondent that the cyclone shelter was dismantled in the year 2018. The fact remains that the land occupied under the school/community hall was vacant since the same was dismantled. In view of principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs Thummala Krishna Rao1 which reads thus:
"The conspectus of facts in the instant case justifies the view that the question as to the title to the three plots cannot appropriately be decided in a summary inquiry contemplated by sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The long possession of the respondents and their predecessors- in- title of these plots raises a genuine dispute between them and the Government on the question of title, remembering especially that the property, admittedly, belonged originally to the family of Nawab Habibuddio from whom the respondents claim to have purchased it. The question as to whether the title to the property came to be vested in the Government as a result of acquisition and the further question whether the Nawab encroached upon that property thereafter and perfected his title by adverse possession must be decided in a properly constituted suit. May be, that the Government may succeed in establishing its title to the property but, until that is done, the respondents cannot be evicted summarily."
17. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as above, the respondents cannot be permitted to take over the possession of the petitioner's property without initiating proper civil proceedings as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs Thummala Krishna Rao (supra). It is further to be clarified that the subject land is meant for Elementary School and the same cannot be converted for any other purpose for which it was 1 1982 AIR 1081, 1982 SCR (3) 500 ::13::
assigned. Therefore, the petitioner herein also cannot be make use of the subject vacant land other than the purpose of school building. It is made clear that the petitioner violated the said condition of assignment for which it was assigned, the subject vacant land automatically vested with the respondent authorities subject to compliance of due procedure as contemplated under the law whereas, as contended by the respondents that pursuant to the sanction proceedings of 3rd respondent in the year 2022 for construction of multi-purpose hall the respondents 4 to 6 proceeded with the construction in the presence of secretary of the petitioner society and kept quiet for 2 years and submitted complaint in PGRS on 29.01.2024 is only an afterthought is valid and to be accepted in view of the evidence and proceedings filed along with counter-affidavit. Therefore, the community hall which is under construction since 2 years might have been completed. However, the subject landed property is specifically earmarked or meant for school as well as community hall, the petitioner society cannot make use for any other purpose or it cannot be alienated to anybody, except to any similar society or to the respondents. In view of the peculiar circumstances the claim of the petitioner to stop the construction is belated one, since the subject construction is for public purpose and at the cost of public exchequer. Hence, the community ::14::
hall should be continued as it is with the management and control of the respondents.
18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and respondents are hereby restrained from interfering with the possession of petitioner's property i.e., Church as well as pastor's residential house and land occupied by them without initiating proper civil proceedings against the petitioner. It is needless to emphasize that the respondents are at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law with reference to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs Thummala Krishna Rao as stated supra. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 19.08.2025 krk ::15::
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.3598 of 2024 19 .08.2025 krk