Telangana High Court
D. Keerthi Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 20 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.NOS. 32197, 32206, 32208, 32210, 32211, 32221,
32320, 32323, 32324, 32326, 32338 and 32905 OF
2024
COMMON ORDER:
In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the order of rejection of their applications in respect of granting building permission in respect of land situated at Grama Kantam of Bachupally village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in view of the resolution passed by the Bachupally Grama Sabha and also the Memo No.6442/2017-B1(Pts)-1, dated 25.03.2023 of the respondent No.2, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to process the applications of the petitioners for granting building permissions and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court has been disposing of similar writ petitions by setting aside the impugned orders and 2 directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to process the applications filed by the petitioners for the grant of building permissions in respect of the land situated at Grama Kantam of Bachupally village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in accordance with law. The petitioners have sought similar relief in these writ petitions as well.
3. The learned Government Pleader, on merits of the case placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.704 of 2022, dated 29.10.2022, wherein it has been held that the respondent No.3 therein i.e., Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice therein and that the petitioner therein was directed to approach the respondent No.3 to take a decision one way or the other in accordance with law. Further, he placed reliance upon the decisions of single judge of this Court in the case of Banne Gandhi and Others Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and 3 Others 1, and supported his proposition that under paras 2 and 3 to BSO 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders, village site, poramboke land (grama natham area/grama kantam land) always vests in the Government and is intended for being allotted as house sites in future. It is submitted that in W.P.No.14460 of 2021, the learned single judge of this Court has referred to G.O.Ms.No.187, dated 27.05.2015 under which the Gramakantam land is deemed to have been vested on Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 53, unless notification is issued under Section 58(2) of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, divesting the land from Gram Panchayat and vesting the same on the Government. Thus, according to the learned Government Pleader, Gramakantam land though is not vested in Gram Panchayat or in the Government, it is only the Government which can pass orders in respect of the said land and the petitioners i.e., individuals cannot claim right or title over the said land. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been relying upon the decision of the 1 2007 SCC OnLine AP 136 4 Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voonna Bangaraju Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 2, for the proposition that Gramakantam is not a Government land and that there is no prohibition to undertake transactions on the said lands, but the said decision is not applicable to the facts of these cases.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that this issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voonna Bangaraju (cited supra) and further that the writ petitions are filed against the rejection of the applications filed by the petitioners for building permissions and therefore, the petitioners have individual grievances and therefore, they need not be clubbed with the PIL. He further submitted that this Court has been directing the respondents to process the application for grant of building permission in accordance with law and therefore, there is no prejudice caused to the revenue by the said orders. It is submitted that the government has not challenged any of 2 2014 (3) ALD 441 5 the orders passed by this Court directing the respondents to process the applications and therefore, the said orders have remained unchallenged and have become final at this stage. He further placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voonna Bangaraju (cited supra), which has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.784 of 2018. Thus, he prayed that the impugned orders of rejection be set aside and the respondents be directed to process the applications of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the decisions relied upon by the learned single judges in the earlier writ petitions and as well as the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.784 of 2018 is that of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voonna Bangaraju (cited supra), wherein it was held that the Gramakantam land is neither a Government land nor land vested in the Village Panchayat. It has not been brought out that the said order 6 has been challenged by the revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, it has become final. The decisions relied upon by the learned government pleader are both the decisions of the learned single judges and were passed without considering the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Voonna Bangaraju (cited supra). The decision in the case of Banne Gandhi and Others (cited supra), is prior to the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vonna Bangaraju (cited supra), while the decision in W.P.No.14460 of 2021 is passed without considering the said judgment. Further, in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.704 of 2022, the Hon'ble Division Bench was considering whether that the High Court can interfere at the stage of issuance of show cause notice and had directed the petitioner therein to the forum of respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 was directed to take a decision in one way or the other in accordance with law.
6. The Division Bench has further observed that the learned single judge in the said case had framed the 7 question for consideration as to the whether the writ petition filed against the issuance of show cause notice, should be entertained or not and therefore, the Court need not enter into the controversy as to whether the subject land is a Gramakantam land or whether Gramakantam land does not vest with the Government or the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, this Court finds that the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Voonna Bangaraju (cited supra) has neither been set aside, suspended nor distinguished by any of the decisions relied upon the learned government pleader. On the other hand, this Court has been relying upon the said decision to set aside the impugned orders and directing the respondents to reconsider the applications of the petitioners for building permissions in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to pass similar orders as in W.P.No.30042 of 2023 by setting aside the impugned orders and directs the respondents No.2 and 3 to process the applications filed by the petitioners for grant of building permission in respect of the subject plot situated at Grama Kantam land at 8 Bachupally village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in accordance with law within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Registry is directed to annex the copies of the order dated 13.08.2024 in W.P.No.30042 of 2023 and also W.P.No.30331 of 2023, dated 18.07.2024 along with this order for ready reference.
7. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 20.01.2025 bak