Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Pedakakani Gram Panchayat vs Bhavaani Mahila Trust Bmt on 22 April, 2025
APHC010282062022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-62
[3483]
AT AMARAVATI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 587 of 2022
The Pedakakani Gram Panchayat ...Appellant
Vs.
Bhavani Mahila Trust (BMT) and Others ...Respondent(s)
**********
Advocate(s) for Appellant(s): Mr. Mattegunta Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Smt. T. V. Sridevi CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 22nd April 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:
The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 05.05.2022, passed in W.P. No.1402 of 2022.
Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:
The grandfather of late Smt. Nagandla Sambrajyam is the owner of various extents of land in Peda kakani Mandal of Guntur District, which included Ac. 0.54 cents in Sy. No.560 of Peda kakani village. The said parcel of land was settled in favour of his son Sri Nagandla Surya Narayana after whose demise the same fell to the share of late Smt. Nagandla Sambrajyam.
The property so falling in the share of late Smt. Nagandla Sambrajyam 2 HCJ & RC, J W.A. No:587 of 2022 included a tiled house stated to be constructed in Ac.0.06 cents in Sy.No.560.
This was subsequently dedicated to Bhavani Mahila Mandali in 1967, which was being used thus in various activities for the development of women and girls in the said area.
2. A notice, dated 06.01.2022, came to be issued by the Gram Panchayat of Peda Kakani in which it was stated that the Bhavani Mahila Mandali was being run in Sy. No.557 and that the said land was proposed to be used for construction of a library and therefore, they were required to vacate the building in three days failing which the land would be taken over.
Upon receipt of the said notice, a petition was filed before the Court during the pendency of which the house was demolished and the assets including the computers etc., were taken by the officers of the Panchayat.
3. The learned single Judge in the writ proceedings ordered the District Collector, Guntur, to conduct a survey over the entire land in Sy.No.560 and 557 of the said village to determine as to whether the house in question fell in Sy. No.560, which was demolished by the Gram Panchayat. The report was filed in which it was stated that the house, which was demolished, was situate in Sy. No.557, which was classified as Grama Kantam in the Resettlement Register. It was also stated that as per the PRIS Survey conducted in the year 2018, the subject land was noted as Government land.
The learned single Judge noticed that according to the report submitted by the Collector, according to which notices were issued on 06.01.2022 and 3 HCJ & RC, J W.A. No:587 of 2022 10.01.2022 whereby no explanation was called and the occupants were simply called upon to vacate the house in question and that according to G.O.Ms.No.188, notice had to be given for giving objections and that eviction could be ordered only after a hearing was given. Learned single Judge after noting the contentions of the parties considered the questions as to whether the Grama Kantam land vests in Gram Panchayat and whether the procedure as prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.188 had been followed or not.
4. G.O.Ms.No.188, dated 21.07.2011, is stated to have been issued pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagpal Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab1. The learned single Judge noted that the procedure to be followed for protection of Gram Panchayat lands was given in Rules 3 and 4 of the A.P. Gram Panchayat (Protection of Property) Rules, 2011, whereas Rule 3 requires the Panchayat Secretary of every Gram Panchayat to prepare an inventory of the landed properties of the Gram Panchayat based on Field Measurement Book and Field Survey Atlas, apart from the field survey inspections. Rule 4 stipulates that where it is found that any property of the Panchayat is under the occupation of any other person, a notice would be served on the party concerned and the said party would be given a hearing before proceeding for eviction.
5. The learned single Judge noted that neither was any inventory prepared in terms of Rule 3 nor was any opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner in terms of Rule 4. It was also noted that this omission was also noticed by the 1 Passed in Civil Appeal.No.1132 of 2011, dated 28.01.2011 4 HCJ & RC, J W.A. No:587 of 2022 District Panchayat Officer, who had reported it to the District Collector and disciplinary action is stated to have been initiated against the Panchayat Secretary and the Extension Authority.
Apart from the issue of violation of principles of natural justice as enshrined in terms of Rule 4 of the said rules, the learned single Judge held that the demolition of the house in possession of the petitioner was beyond the authority of the Gram Panchayat. Reference in this regard was made to Section 58 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the judgments rendered in the case of Banne Gandhi and Ors. v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and Ors2 as also Sigadapu Vijaya v. State Of Andhra Pradesh3.
In the backdrop of the aforementioned facts, the learned single Judge proceeded to allow the writ petition and issued directions for purposes of compensating the petitioner on account of the loss caused by such a demolition.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the view expressed by the learned single Judge is unsustainable inasmuch as the learned single Judge did not appreciate that the house in question was not situate in Sy. No.560 as was in the case set up by the petitioner but was situate in Sy. No.557 over which the petitioner had no right or title, being Grama Kantam land. It was further urged that direction for bearing the entire cost of construction by the Gram Panchayat was also unwarranted. 2 2007 (4) ALT 550 3 2015 (4) ALT 296 5 HCJ & RC, J W.A. No:587 of 2022
7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein on the other hand reiterated its stand as was taken before the learned single Judge.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. It is not denied that the procedure as prescribed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.188, dated 21.07.2011, was not followed by the appellant. This fact has been established clearly through the report filed by the Collector in response to the directions issued by the learned single Judge. Rules did require an opportunity of being heard to be given to the concerned, in this case, respondent No.1. Had such an opportunity been given, the petitioner would have brought to the notice of the concerned officers of the Gram Panchayat as to why action legally could not be taken against them and if at all it could be taken in the manner in which it ought to have been taken. Since no such opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner, certainly the finding recorded by the learned single Judge that it was in violation of principles of natural justice would require no interference.
10. Apart from the above, the second issue that is required to be considered is whether the Gram Panchayat at all had any authority and jurisdiction to proceed against the property of the petitioner or serve any notices as envisaged in terms of G.O.Ms.No.188.
While the learned single Judge has taken a view in this matter, a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Thakur,J) was a member, in 6 HCJ & RC, J W.A. No:587 of 2022 Gram Panchayat v. Vegi Paparao 4 had taken a view considering the amended provision of Section 58 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, wherein it was held that only such land which was vacant and unoccupied, among others mentioned in Section 58, would vest in the Gram Panchayat which then would be subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed.
Section 58(1) as it existed before its amendment read thus:
"58. Certain Government porambokes to vest in gram panchayat etc-
(1) The following porambokes namely grazing grounds, threshing floors, burning and burial grounds, cattle stands, cart-stands and topes, which are at the disposal of the Government and are not required by them for any specific purpose shall vest in the gram panchayat subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed."
This section was subsequently amended by virtue of Act No.14 of 2021, which was notified on 20.12.2021 and provided as under:
"3. In the principal Act, in Section 58, in sub-section (1), after the words "Cart Stands", the words "vacant and unoccupied land of Grama Kantam" shall be inserted."
After the amendment, Section 58(1) reads as under:
"58. Certain Government porambokes to vest in gram panchayat etc-
(1) The following porambokes namely grazing grounds, threshing floors, burning and burial grounds, cattle stands, cart-stands and topes, vacant and unoccupied land of Grama Kantam, which are at the disposal of the Government and are not required by them for any specific purpose shall vest in the gram panchayat subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed."
11. It would be worthwhile to reproduce para Nos.10 and 11 of the judgment rendered in W.A. No.345 of 2023 which read as under: 4
2024 SCC OnLine AP 5279 7 HCJ & RC, J W.A. No:587 of 2022 "10. Learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents herein, on the other hand, would submit that even after the amendment of Section 58(1) of the Act, 1994, only such Grama Kantam land which was vacant and unoccupied would be deemed to vest in the Gram Panchayat and since the Grama Kantam land which was in possession of the petitioners was neither vacant nor unoccupied, the said parcels of land would be outside the purview of the Act, 1994, and therefore the Gram Panchayat would have no authority of law to take any action in regard to such a Grama Kantam land much less had any authority of law to evict the petitioners from their shops in question or demolish their structures erected thereupon.
11. We find considerable force in the argument of learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. V. V. Ravi Prasad. On a bare reading of the amended provision of Section 58(1), it is clear that only vacant and unoccupied Grama Kantam land would vest in the Gram Panchayat over which it could exercise control and impose restrictions."
12. In our opinion, therefore, not only was the action of the appellant in violation of principles of natural justice but even otherwise, it was without jurisdiction as the property in question was constructed over a land which was neither unoccupied nor vacant and the property in question had been constructed as early as 1967 or prior whereas the notice was affixed on the property in question by the Gram Panchayat authorities only in the year 2022 and were thus subject to the mandate of Section 58 in its amended form.
Even on the issue of payment of compensation, we are of the opinion that no error was committed by the learned single Judge. Even this issue had been considered in W.A. No.345 of 2023 following the ratio of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Manoj Kumar v. Union of India 5 . It would be worthwhile to reproduce para No.13 of W.A. No.345 of 2023 hereinbelow:
"13. Having declared the action of the appellant as illegal and without jurisdiction, it is the duty of the constitutional courts to ensure that measures are taken to address the consequences of arbitrary and illegal actions of the appellant. At this stage, it may be pertinent to refer to a recent judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India, wherein it was held:5
2024 (3) SCC 563 8 HCJ & RC, J W.A. No:587 of 2022 "20. We are of the opinion that while the primary duty of constitutional courts remains the control of power, including setting aside of administrative actions that may be illegal or arbitrary, it must be acknowledged that such measures may not singularly address repercussions of abuse of power. It is equally incumbent upon the courts, as a secondary measure, to address the injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal actions. This concomitant duty to take reasonable measures to restitute the injured is our overarching constitutional purpose. This is how we have read our constitutional text, and this is how we have built our precedents on the basis of our preambular objective to secure justice."
13. Be that as it may, we find no merit in the present writ appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J akn 92 9 HCJ & RC, J W.A. No:587 of 2022 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Writ Appeal No:587 of 2022 DATE : 22.04.2025 AKN