The vs State Of Andhra Pradesh.
2022 Latest Caselaw 2351 AP

    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

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

2015 (4) ALD Page 88

2014 (3) ALD page 443

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,

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.

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

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

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

RRR,J W.P.No.16740 of 2021