THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.16740 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioner claims ownership and possession over Ac.0.25 cents of land in Sy.No.100 of Donkalaparta Village, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam District. He submits that the said property had devolved on him as ancestral property. The said land was said to have been classified in the revenue records as 'Gramakantam'. The petitioner had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.11025 of 2021 to complain against the action of the respondents 5 and 6 who are said to have tried to evict the petitioner in May, 2021. This writ petition was disposed of on 30.06.2021 recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the respondent-authorities would not interfere with the possession of the petitioner without following due process of law.
2. On 07.07.2021, the 6th respondent is said to have issued a show notice to the petitioner. In this show cause notice, it was stated that there was a proposal to construct a Rythu Bharosa Kendram, Wellness Center, Bulk Milk Cooling Center, Anganwadi Center over Ac.5.23 cents of land in Sy.No.100 including the land in the possession of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.0.25 cents. The notice further stated that in view of the direction of this Court, the petitioner 2 RRR,J W.P.No.16740 of 2021 would have to demonstrate his title over the said land within 15 days.
3. The petitioner is said to have given his objections to the said notice along with available documents on 23.07.2021. However, the respondent-authorities without disposing of the said objections and explanations, sought to dispossess the petitioner on 07.08.2021. Aggrieved by the said action of the official respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that Gramakantam land cannot be treated as land belonging to the Government and that the Judgments of this Court in Sigadapu Vijaya vs. State of Andhra Pradesh.,1 and Voonna Bangaraju vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.,2 had already clarified that Gramakantam cannot be treated as Government lands and as such, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed from the said land. The petitioner relies upon an adangal certified by the village revenue officer and a possession certificate given by the same village revenue officer to contend that he is in possession of the said land. Apart from this the petitioner also relies on the impugned notice to contend that his possession over the land was admitted in the impugned notice.
5. The 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that there was a proposal to construct the aforesaid 1 2015 (4) ALD Page 88 2 2014 (3) ALD page 443 3 RRR,J W.P.No.16740 of 2021 buildings, for which purpose steps were being taken for construction of the same in Sy.No.100 in the land which is in the possession of the Gram Panchayat. It is the case of the 6th respondent that the Ac.0.25 cents of land is in the exclusive possession of the Gram Panchayat and the petitioner, taking advantage of the fact that his agricultural land abuts the subject site, was trying to grab the Panchayat land.
6. Adverting to the material relied upon by the petitioner to demonstrate his ownership and possession, the 6th respondent stated that the certificate said to have been issued by the Village Revenue Officer, certifying the possession and enjoyment of the land by the petitioner is not available in the records of the Tahsildar and this fact was also stated by the Tahsildar, in his letter dated 10.08.2021. The 6th respondent also took the plea that in the notice dated 07.07.2021, there was no admission that the petitioner was in possession of the property and the notice was only given to the petitioner to produce documents if any, showing title of the petitioner over the subject site. The 6th respondent also produced photographs showing that the footings and pillars to a certain height have already come up in the land.
7. This Court to ascertain the facts, had appointed an Advocate Commissioner, to note down the physical features of the land and foundations laid in Sy.No.100. The learned Advocate Commissioner has filed a report. In this report, it is stated that there are about 200 houses, cattle sheds, 4 RRR,J W.P.No.16740 of 2021 threshing floors, school and Panchayat office in approximately Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.100. About Ac.0.40 cents of land is covered by cements roads and there is only an extent of Ac.0.73 cents which is open land in Sy.No.100. The learned Advocate Commissioner also stated that at the time of inspection, the entire site was submerged in water and he could verify only on the basis of the information given by the Mandal Surveyor, that there are about 36 columns and the length of the foundation is about 120 feet from east to west and 80 feet from north to south and the total extent of land occupied by this construction is about Ac.0.20 cents of land. The learned Advocate Commissioner also prepared a rough sketch which shows that there is a vacant Gramakantam site of Ac.0.50 cents on the eastern side in Sy.No.100 which is occupied by villagers. Irrigation canal in Sy.No.128 on the western side with some vacant space between the irrigation canal and foundation to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents. On the northern side, a panchayat road with houses and cattle sheds between the panchayat road and the construction. On the southern side, the petitioner has an extent of Ac.0.33 cents in Sy.No.96/2 and there is space of about Ac.0.02 cents between the land of the petitioner and the construction.
8. The petitioner filed a reply affidvait stating that the land in question is Gramakantam land over which the Gram Panchayat would not have any power and no coercive action can be initiated against the petitioner in relation to this land. 5
RRR,J W.P.No.16740 of 2021
9. While it is true, that there are Judgments of this Court to the effect that a Gram Panchayat may not interfere with the possession of land by private persons in Gramakantam land, the question arises in the present case is whether the petitioner is in possession of the said land.
10. The case of the petitioner is that he is in possession of the land and the petitioner relies upon a certificate said to have been issued by the Village Revenue Officer in the year 2009 stating that Ac.0.25 cents of land in Sy.No.100 is in the possession of the petitioner, as ancestral property. This certificate has been denied by the respondents. A perusal of the certificate would show that except the stamp of the Village Revenue Officer and the signature above the stamp, there is no other material to demonstrate the possession of the petitioner over the said land. The petitioner has also produced an adangal, showing his possession over Ac.0.25 cents of land in Sy.No.100. This adangal is said to have been certified by the Village Revenue Officer. As these documents are denied by the respondents, it would not be appropriate for this Court to either rely on the said document or to reject the said document as the same is a question of fact whether the said documents are genuine documents or not.
11. The notice dated 07.07.2021 issued by the 6th respondent specifically states that it was the contention of the petitioner before this Court that the said land is in his possession and that the petitioner was called upon to produce 6 RRR,J W.P.No.16740 of 2021 material to show his ownership over the land. There is no admission, in this notice, by the 6th respondent that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed site.
12. The report of the learned Advocate Commissioner shows that the 6th respondent has already commenced construction of the building and about 36 pillars have already been raised in Ac.0.20 cents of land. This would show that the said property is in the possession of the 6th respondent Gram Panchayat.
13. The prayer in the writ petition is that the action of the respondents, in proceeding with the construction, without following due process of law in pursuance to the notice dated 07.07.2021, is illegal and without jurisdiction. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate either title or possession over the said land and on the other hand, the fact that a construction is being carried out in the said land by the Gram Panchayat would go to show that the petitioner is not in possession of the said land.
14. In the circumstances, nothing further survives in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 05-05-2022 RJS 7 RRR,J W.P.No.16740 of 2021 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.16740 of 2021 Date : 05.05.2022 RJS 8 RRR,J W.P.No.16740 of 2021