Telangana High Court
Sri. Yanala Gangadhar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 23 March, 2023
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.38003 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard Sri P.Venkanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.Amrutha Rao, learned Asst.Govt.Pleadder for Revenue and Sri Nazeer Ahmed, learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Pancayat Raj. Perused the record.
2. This Writ Petition is filed to declare action of the respondents in allocating Kothur (C) Village of Chinthapalli Revenue Village, to Seerole, New Revenue Mandal, Mahabubabad District, by issuing Final Notification vide G.O.Ms.No.101 dated 26.09.2022 (for short, Final Notification'), without considering the objections of petitioner/Kothur (C) Grampanchayat, as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to delete the same from Final Notification and continue the same in the existing Kuravi Revenue Mandal, Mahabubabad District.
3. The petitioner herein is Sarpanch of Kothuru (C) Village, Kuravi Mandal, Mahabubabad District. According to the petitioner, 1st respondent had issued Final Notification without considering the objections of Grampanchayat Kothur (C) as per the order dated 29.08.2022 in W.P.No.34017 of 2022. The 1st respondent issued Preliminary Notification vide G.O.Rt.No.253, dated 22.07.2022 (for 2 short, 'Preliminary Notification') including Kothuru (C) Village in the proposed new revenue Mandal i.e. Seerole, Mahabubabad District. A copy of the same was communicated to Kothuru (C) Grampanchayat under Section 3(5) of the Telangana District (Formation) Act, 1974 (for short, 'the Act') and also invited objections for the said proposal. According to the petitioner, Kothuru (C) Grampanchayat is near to NH 365 and existing Kuravi Mandal is just 7 kms, away and sufficient transport facility is also there. It is very convenient to the public to access existing Kuravi Mandal Headquarter as well as District Headquarter.
4. The proposed Seerole mandal is far away i.e. 13kms from Kothuru (C) Grampanchayat, and located in interior and remote area. The people of Kothuru (C) Grampanchayt needs to travel 13 kms through forest and hillocks. There is no proper transport and road facility and the people need to make three break journey to reach Seerole Mandal. The Kothuru (C) Grampanchayat consisting of nearly 1000 population, more than 40 Dwarkra Groups, self-help groups, Health Workers and Anganwadi Teachers. Most of them are women who need to travel to attend weekly and monthly meetings at Mandal Headquarters. Therefore, it is very difficult for all these women to travel 3 13kms, to the proposed Seerole Mandal Headquarters which is located very interior and remote area by crossing the forest and hillocks, with three break journey. It is also very difficult for the students to travel and get some certificates like caste and income etc., from Tahsildar/MRO office. It will take one full day to get any work done by travelling proposed Seerole Mandal.
5. The 1st respondent had issued Final Notification for formation of new Revenue Mandal i.e. Seerole, Mahabubabad district. In the said notification, it is mentioned that 'in the interest of better administration and development of the areas concerned' but the respondents are acting against the interest of the people. If Kothuru (C) Grampanchayat is merged in the proposed new revenue mandal i.e. Seerole, the people of the said Village will put to great harassment. On receiving a copy of notification, the petitioner Grampanchayat conducted a meeting as well as Gramasabha and passed unanimous resolution, dated 26.07.2022 opposing the said proposal and requested the District Collector to continue the petitioner village in the existing Kuruvi Mandal only. They have submitted the said resolution to the District Collector through Tahsildar/MRO, as well as Mandal Parishad Development Officer, within the time prescribed in the notification.
4
6. The Kothuru (C) Grampanchayat also filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.34017 of 2022 and this Court vide order dated 29.08.2022 disposed of the said writ petition directing 4th respondent to consider the objections raised by Kothuru (C) Grampanchayat by its resolution dated 26.07.2022 and take a final decision in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner Grampanchayat. Despite the same, the respondents merged Kothur (C) Village of Chinthapalli Revenue Village, in the proposed new revenue mandal i.e. Seerole by issuing Final Notification, without considering the objections of Kothuru (C) Grampanchayat.
7. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed counters contending that this Court vide order dated 27.10.2022 granted interim suspension of the said notification. In fact, the Government with a view to provide better administration and development, had issued notification to form new Mandal i.e. Seerolu in Mahabubabad District through Final Notification. In the proposed Seerole Revenue Mandal, Seerolu, Kampelle, Upparagudem, Thallasankeesa and Chinthapalli Village which are existing in Kuravi Mandal and Mannagudem Village from Dornakal Mandal are included. The respondent No.6 issued Preliminary Notification dated 22.07.2022 inviting objections or suggestions on the 5 above proposals from all persons residing within the District/Revenue Division/Mandals/Villages which would be taken into consideration. The notification issued is not for reducing the village area or to change the boundaries of the village or the Grampanchayats existing in the revenue village. They received objections from Kothuru (C) Grampanchayat as well as from other villages. In all representations, the objections raised are with regard to distance, transport facilities and road convenience to proposed Seerolu Mandal.
8. The MLA, Dornakal has submitted a representation requesting to retain the villages as per Preliminary Notification and further the six villages which are to be included in the new mandal would be beneficial to the villagers. He has submitted the reasons, basing on the factual situation of the villages. Having taken into consideration of the facts and also other details, a report was submitted by respondent Nos.4 and 6, dated 25.09.2022 for formation of new Mandal at Seerole with six villages.
9. As per the Act, 1974, 1st respondent is empowered to create new district, new revenue division or new mandal by uniting two or more districts, two or more divisions and mandals respectively. The petitioner has not made out any case to disturb the establishment of 6 Seerole as new Mandal. In Preliminary Notification, 5 villages are included in the proposed revenue Seerole mandal i.e. Seerole, Kampelle, Upparagudem, Tallasankeesa and Chinthapalle. The Kothur (C) Village, now existing in Kuravi Mandal, is part and parcel of Chinthapalle. The creation of new districts, revenue divisions or mandals are policy decision of the State with a view to provide better administration to the public. Therefore, the objections raised by the petitioner are not tenable on any count. With the said contentions, they sought to dismiss the writ petition.
10. In view of the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner and respondents, it is relevant to extract the following provisions of the Act:-
2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-
(a) ............
(b) ............
(c) ............
(d) .............
(e) "revenue division mandal and village" means respectively any area which is notified as a revenue division, mandal or village under this Act.
Section 3. Division of State into districts, formation of new districts and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing districts (1) The Government may, by notification, from time to time, for the purposes of revenue administration, divide the State into such districts with such limits as may be specified therein; and each district shall consist of such revenue divisions and each revenue division shall consist of such mandals and each mandal shall consist of such villages as the Government may, by notification from time to time, specify in this behalf. 7 (2) The Government may, in the interests of better administration and development of the areas, by notification, from time to time, and with effect on and from such date as may be specified therein.-
(a) form a new district, revenue division, or mandal by separation of area from any district, revenue division, or mandal or by uniting two or more districts, revenue divisions, or mandals or parts thereof or by uniting any area to a district, revenue division, or mandal or part thereof;
(b) increase the area of any district, revenue division, or mandal;
(c) diminish the area of any district, revenue division, or mandal;
(d) alter the boundaries of any district, revenue division, or mandal;
(e) alter the name of any district, revenue division, or mandal; 7 [XXX] (3) The areas, boundaries and names, of the districts, revenue divisions, taluks, firkas and villages in the State existing at the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been notified under sub-section (1) and shall continue until they are altered by the Government or the Commissioner of Land Revenue, as the case may be.
(5) Before issuing any notification under this section, the Government or the Commissioner of Land Revenue, as the case may be, shall publish in such manner as may be prescribed, the proposals inviting objections or suggestions thereon from the persons residing within the district, revenue division, mandal or village who are likely to be affected thereby within such period as may be specified therein, and shall take into consideration the objections or suggestions, if any, received.
11. Thus, before issuing any notification, 1st respondent has to invite proposals or suggestions from the persons residing within the village who are likely to be effected, thereby by fixing some time by publishing notification as prescribed.
12. Whereas, in the present case, Preliminary Notification was issued proposing to form Seerole revenue mandal with six villages in 8 Schedule-II of the said G.O. However, in Final Notification issued by 1st respondent, Kothuru (C) Grampanchayat Village is included in newly formed Seerole revenue mandal in Schedule-II. Therefore, 1st respondent has not followed the aforesaid procedure laid down under the Act before including Kothuru (C) Grampanchayat in proposed Seerole Mandal. 1st respondent has not considered the objections from the persons residing within the village including the people of Kothuru (C) Grampanchayat before issuing Final Notification. Thus, there is gross violation of the aforesaid procedure laid down under the Act while issuing Final Notification by the 1st respondent.
13. On receiving a copy of notification, the petitioner Grampanchayat conducted a meeting as well as Gramasabha and passed unanimous resolution, dated 26.07.2022 opposing the said proposal and requested the District Collector to continue the petitioner village in the existing Kuruvi Mandal only. They have submitted the said resolution to the District Collector through Tahsildar/MRO, as well as Mandal Parishad Development Officer, within the time prescribed in the notification.
14. However, referring to the objections received from Kothuru (C) Grampanchayat raised by the Villagers with regard to distance, 9 transport facilities and road convenience to proposed Seerolu Mandal, both the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Revenue would submit the MLA, Dornakal, basing on the factual situations of the villages, has submitted a representation requesting to retain the villages as per Preliminary Notification and further the six villages which are to be included in the new mandal would be beneficial to the villagers and after considering the said facts and also other aspects, a report was submitted by respondent Nos.4 and 6, dated 25.09.2022 for formation of new Mandal at Seerole with six villages. They have also followed the procedure laid down under the Act which empowers them to do so.
15. The contention of respondent Nos.5 and 6 that this court in its order dated 01.04.2022 in W.P.(PIL) No.8 of 2017 categorically held that in policy decisions unless there is violation of fundamental rights, Courts shall not interfere. In the said case, the G.O.Ms.No.240, Revenue (DA-CMRF) Department, dated 11.10.2016 was not challenged. Vide aforesaid G.O., 1st respondent has decided to form new revenue divisions or mandals. Thus, there is no violation of procedure laid down under the Act.
10
16. There is no dispute that the scope of judicial review is very limited in policy decisions, at the same time, if there is violation of procedure prescribed under a particular statute, this Court certainly exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and interfere with the said policy decision of the 1st respondent.
17. Perusal of the record would show that this Court vide order dated 29.08.2022 in W.P.No.34017 of 2022 directed 4th respondent to consider the objections raised by Kothuru (C) Grampanchayat by its resolution dated 26.07.2022 and take a final decision in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner Grampanchayat. The petitioner Grampanchayat in the meeting held on 26.07.2022 discussed al the aspects and passed resolution mentioning the aforesaid problems which they have to face if their village is merged into proposed Seerole mandal, opposed the said decision and requested to continue their village in the existing Kuravi Mandal. But ignoring the said directions of this Court and without considering the objections of petitioner Grampanchayat, 1st respondent had issued Final Notification including Kothur (C) Village in the proposed Seerole Mandal.
18. As discussed supra, in the present case, there is gross violation of the procedure laid down under the Act and therefore, the Final 11 Notification issued by 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.101, dated 26.09.2022 including Kothur (C) Village in newly proposed Seerole Mandal is liable to be set aside.
19. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The Final Notification vide G.O.Ms.No.101 dated 26.09.2022 including Kothur (C) Village in newly proposed Seerole Mandal is set aside However, liberty is granted to 1st respondent to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and take action afresh in accordance with law.
Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:23.03.2023 vvr