Divvala Ramanamma, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 258 AP

                                      1




    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

                 Writ Petition No.260 of 2020



ORDER:

Heard Sri M.Solomon Raju for Sri Ambati. Srinivas,

learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri I. Koti Reddy,

learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat.

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of

Constitution of India for the following relief;

"to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in

the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the

proceedings in Prgs.Rc.No.541/2019/EGS/D,

dt.23.10.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent thereby

granted administrative sanction for construction of

'Grama Sachivalayam' building in an extent of

Ac.0.17½ cents in Survey Nos.303/5 and 304/2

situated in Indira Nagar Extension Colony, Chapuram

Gram Panchayat, Srikakulam Rural Mandal,

Srikakulam District, which is an open space reserved

for 'Village Park' allotted to the 7th respondent and

consequential action of the respondents in taking steps

to construct 'Grama Sachivalayam' building in the

above reserved site as illegal, irregular, irrational,

without any authority of law, violative of provisions of

Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and rules

framed there under and offends Articles 14 and 21 of

Constitution of India and consequently direct the

respondents not to execute any construction work of

'Grama Sachivalayam' building in an extent of

Ac.0.17½ cents covered by Survey Nos.303/5 and

304/2 situated in Indira Nagar Extension Colony,

Chapuram Gram Panchayat, Srikakulam Rural

Mandal, Srikakulam District and pass such other order

or orders..."

The case of the petitioners is that in a particular bit of

land, which has been earmarked for the 'village park' in the

layout that has been sanctioned, the respondent-State is

attempting to construct a Gram Sachivalayam. The bit of land

measuring Ac.0.17½ cents is in Indira Nagar Extension

Colony. These facts are not strictly in dispute. Learned

counsel points out by referring to the plan that there is a

park, which is earmarked. He also relies upon the

proceedings of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural

Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Andhra

Pradesh, in which some funds were also sanctioned for the

development construction of the park. The entire grievance of

the petitioners is that in this area, which has been earmarked

for park, a Gram Sachivalayam is being constructed. He

submits that in view of settled case law on the subject, once a

particular bit of land is earmarked for a particular purpose

under the relevant statute, the same cannot be changed,

particularly to the detriment of the citizens. Therefore, he

prays for an order.

In reply to this, Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned Standing

Counsel submits that the park is meant for a communal

purpose. He points out that out of the Ac.0.17½ cents only a

small bit of land Ac.0.05 cents is proposed to be used for

construction of Grama Sachivalayam. He points out that this

is also for the public purpose and basing on the

representation received from the people who are residing in

that area, the State has decided to construct the office, which

will serve the community at large in the area. Therefore,

learned Standing Counsel argues that the land is being used

for public purpose only and that this Court is therefore

should not enter into or come in the way of construction of

Grama Sachivalayam.

In the rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that there is no proof filed to show that a

representation given by the villagers. Even otherwise he

argues that once this particular bit of land is earmarked for a

park in the layout, it is only the sanctioning authority which

has the power or authority to change the use of the land and

not the Panchayat on the basis of the alleged representation.

He relies upon two cases i.e., Division Bench Judgment of

High Court in P. Nagaraju Vs. Ananthapur Municipality1

and the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of India in

M.I. Builders Private Limited Vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu2,

which are annexed to the rejoinder. He argues in line with

what he has filed.

Laws (APH) Volume 8 Page No.45

LAWS (SC) 1999 Volume 7 Page No.65

After hearing both the learned counsel, this Court

notices that there is no strict dispute about the fact that there

is a park, which is earmarked in the layout. The extent of

land is also Ac.0.17½ cents and as admitted in the counter,

the developer executed a gift deed in favour of

Gram Panchayat leaving Ac.0.17½ cents as open space. This

is the factual situation, which is clearly admitted. It is also

admitted that out of this Ac.0.05 cents of land would be

utilised for construction of the Grama Sachivalayam.

Therefore, in light of these admissions, this Court is of the

opinion that the factual aspects need not detain this any

more. The law on the subject is well settled. In fact the law in

two citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioners squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of

the present case. The need to preserve the environment,

improve the health of the residents etc., is to be achieved by

promoting greenery etc. particularly, in the residential areas.

This is the reason why the layouts are being sanctioned with

recreational areas/parks and some bits of land have been

earmarked for this purpose. In this case a gift deed was also

executed. Therefore, it is also clear that the land is earmarked

for a park only. This Court is of the opinion that the purpose,

for which is earmarked, cannot be changed suo motu by the

Gram Panchayat. The representation said to have been given

by the villagers will not also come to the aid of the Gram

Panchayat for changing the land use.

For all the above mentioned reasons, this Court is of the

opinion that the petitioners have made out a case for grant of

an order in their favour. Hence, for all the above reasons, the

writ petition is allowed granting an order restraining the

respondents from constructing Grama Sachivalayam building

in the land measuring Ac.0.17½ in Survey Nos.303/5 and

304/2 situated in Indira Nagar Extension Colony, Chapuram

Gram Panchayat. There shall be no costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU Date: 21.01.2021 GR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

Writ Petition No.260 of 2020

Dated: 21.01.2021

GR