B.Ravindra Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 7838 AP

 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                WRIT PETITION No. 17614 of 2020

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the

respondents in proposing to construct the Grama Sachivalayam of

Puttayapalli Village, Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District, at

Godugunur Village instead of existing location of Puttayapalli

Gram Panchayat office contrary to G.O.Ms.No.110, Panchayat Raj

& Rural Development Department, dated 19.07.2020 issued by the

1st respondent and also the orders of the 2nd respondent dated

10.01.2020, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Briefly, the case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are

residents of hamlet villages of Puttayapalli Gram Panchayat,

Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District and they are marginal farmers.

The population of the village is 1700. The 2nd respondent granted

sanction for construction of Grama Sachivalayam at Puttayapalli

Village vide proceedings dated 10.01.2020. Pursuant to which, the

Tahsildar of Badvel Mandal, submitted a report to the 3 rd

respondent stating that Survey Nos.358 and 118 of Puttayapalli are

NV,J W.P.No.17614 of 2020

suitable for construction of Grama Sachivalayam. But, without

conducting Gramasabha at Puttayapalli, the construction was

started at Godugunur village at Sy.No.228-1, instead of

constructing the Grama Sachivalayam at Puttayapalli village. The

alleged action was made at the instance of the local leaders for

appreciation of real estate values at Godugunur village. The

Grama Sachivalayam would be convenient for the public, if it is

constructed at Puttayapalli village as the Gram Panchayat office is

adjacent to the proposed construction. If the Grama Sachivalayam

building is constructed in Godugunur village, it would cause great

difficulty to the residents of Puttayapalli village. Hence the writ

petition.

3. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that

Puttayapalli Gram Panchayat consists of five habitations namely,

Puttayapalli, Puttayapalli B.C. colony, Godugunur, Godugunur

HW and Ramakrishnapuram. In consonance with the new village

secretariat system, it is proposed to construct Grama Sachivalayam,

Rythu Bharosa Kendram and Village health Clinic and instructions

NV,J W.P.No.17614 of 2020

were issued to take up the construction in Ac.0.10 cents, Ac.0.08

cents and Ac.0.05 cents respectively at single premises. The 3rd

respondent instructed all the Tahsildars to identify suitable land for

the proposed construction in due consultation with other officials

of Gram Panchayat. Initially, a vacant land at Puttayapalli village

was identified of an extent of Ac.0.10 cents, but it was dropped at

the proposal stage because of the reason that the villagers raised

objections as it is surrounded by a Temple and a School. Later, an

extent of Ac.0.23 cents in Sy.No.228/6 was identified as suitable

for the proposed construction and a resolution was passed on

11.06.2020 consenting for the same. The proposed construction at

Sy.No.228/6 of Godugunur village was also approved by a

Committee consisting of the Tahsildar, the MPDO, the Medical

Officer, the Mandal Agriculture Officer and the Assistant Engineer

(PR). Thus, the said decision was taken on administrative

convenience and in the public interest. The petitioners are trying to

stall the construction on one reason or the other contrary to the

public interest. There is no illegality or violation of any rule in

identifying or constructing the Village Secretariat at Sy.No.228-6,

NV,J W.P.No.17614 of 2020

Godugunur Revenue village of Puttayapalli Gram Panchayat.

Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that out of

five habitations, Puttayapalli and Puttayapalli B.C. colony are

located at one place and the other three habitations are located at

another place. If the construction of proposed buildings is made at

Puttayapalli, it would cause difficulty to the people of

Ramakrishnapuram village which is 4 kms. away from Puttayapalli

village. The construction at Godugunur village is more suitable for

all the people. The site identified for new village secretariat

building is just 1 km away from Puttayapalli village/present Gram

Panchayat office and located adjacent to Puttayapalli-Badvel road.

The 3rd respondent has given administrative approval for

construction of new Village Secretariat building. Accordingly,

construction work has been taken up and 50% of the work was

already completed on the field even before filing of the instant writ

petition. There are no merits in the writ petition and hence, the

same is liable to be dismissed.

NV,J W.P.No.17614 of 2020

5. Heard Sri M. Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for

respondent Nos.1 and 3, learned Government Pleader for

Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4, Sri V. Vinod

K Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, and

Sri Srinivas Basava, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 12.

6. The admitted facts are that initially, the 3rd respondent

granted administrative sanction for construction of Grama

Sachivalayam buildings in PRI Division, Rajampeta, Kadapa

District vide proceedings dated 10.01.2020. Serial number 17 of

the work-wise details relates to Badvel Mandal and out of five, one

Grama Sachivalayam was sanctioned in favour of the 6th

respondent-Gram Panchayat to be constructed at Puttayapalli

village. Further, the Tahsildar, Badvel Mandal, submitted a report

to the 3rd respondent to the effect that Sy.Nos.358 and 118 of

Puttayapalli are suitable for construction of Grama Sachivalayam.

The Puttayapalli Gram Panchayat consists of five habitations, they

are Puttayapalli, Puttayapalli B.C. colony, Godugunur, Godugunur

NV,J W.P.No.17614 of 2020

HW and Ramakrishnapuram and out of five habitations,

Puttayapalli and Puttayapalli B.C. colony are located at one place

and the other three habitations are located at another place.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that

the change of construction of Grama Sachivalayam from

Puttayapalli to Godugunur village is at the behest of local leaders

of party in power and it is for real estate purpose only and not at

the convenience of the people, is not sustainable for the reason that

the petitioners are unable to demonstrate the administrative action

regarding shifting of Grama Sachivalayam to Godugunur village

which is nearer to three habitations, namely, Godugunur,

Godugunur HW and Ramakrishnapuram which are 4 kms. away

from Puttayapalli village. The other contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioners that once the administrative sanction

was accorded and also a report was submitted with regard to

suitability and identification of land at Puttayapalli village, it

cannot be changed to any other location other than the sanctioned

location without conducting Gramasabha of Puttayapalli village, is

NV,J W.P.No.17614 of 2020

also not sustainable and against the procedure contemplated under

the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as well as G.O.Ms.No.110 dated

19.07.2020, in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in J.R.Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P.1 as well as the orders passed

by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.965 of 2021

and 16740 of 2021 dated 05.05.2022. In J.R.Raghupathy case (1

supra), the Apex Court held at paras 9, 17 and 31 as under:

"9. It will serve no useful purpose to delineate the facts in all the cases which follow more or less on the same lines. We are of the opinion that the High Court had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the decision of the state Government to locate the Mandal Headquarters at a particular place. The decision to locate such headquarters at a particular village is dependent upon various factors. The High Court obviously could not evaluate for itself the comparative merits of a particular place as against the other for location of the Mandal Headquarters. In some of the cases the High Court declined to interfere saying that the Government was the best judge of the situation in the matter of location of Mandal Headquarters. However, in a few cases the High Court while quashing the impugned notifications for location of Mandal Headquarters issued under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act on the ground that there was a breach of the guidelines, directed the Government to reconsider the question after hearing the parties.

(1988) 4 SCC 364

NV,J W.P.No.17614 of 2020

17. We find it rather difficult to sustain the interference by the High Court in some of the cases with location of Mandal Headquarters and quashing of the impugned notification on the ground that the Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience or that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the areas surrounded by it or that merely because a particular person who was an influential member of Legislative Assembly belonging to the party in opposition had the right of representation but failed to avail of it. The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like Gram Panchayats and the general public keeping in view the relevant factors. Even assuming that any breach of the guidelines was justifiable, the utmost that the High Court could have done was to quash the impugned notification in a particular case and direct the Government to reconsider the question. There was no warrant for the High Court to have gone further and directed the shifting of the Mandal Headquarters to a particular place.

31. We find it rather difficult to sustain the judgment of the High Court in some of the cases where it has interfered with the location of Mandal Headquarters and quashed the impugned notifications on the ground that the Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that once place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other

NV,J W.P.No.17614 of 2020

place would promote general public convenience, or that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the area surrounded by it. The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet sub-committee of the proposals submitted by the collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like the gram panchayats and the general public. Even assuming that the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters should be at place „X‟ rather than place „Y‟ as recommended by the collector concerned in a particular case, the High court would not have issued writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners."

8. The contention of the learned Government Pleader for

Panchayat Raj that the land available and identified at Puttayapalli

village is only Ac.0.10 cents where one Grama Sachivayalam can

be constructed; but, as per the policy of the 1st respondent, Grama

Sachivalayam, Rythu Bharosa Kendram and Village health Clinic

shall be constructed at one location for the convenience of the

people and therefore, the present land at Puttayapalli village is not

suitable for construction of these three public offices; and the

NV,J W.P.No.17614 of 2020

present identified place to an extent of Ac.0.23 cents in

Sy.No.228/6 in Godugunur village was donated by third parties for

construction of the above three public offices and to that effect a

resolution was also passed on 11.06.2020 by the 6th respondent-

Gram Panchayat, as such, the present construction of Grama

Sachivalayam and other buildings cannot be interfered with, should

be considered. The other contention of the learned Government

Pleader is that some villagers of Puttayapalli raised objections for

construction of Grama Sachivalayam at the earlier identified place

on the ground that the identified land is surrounded by a Temple

and a School. The proposed construction is not suitable and it

would create traffic hazards as well as disturbance to the peaceful

atmosphere of the Temple and the School. In view of the same, the

contention of the learned Government Pleader is tenable. The

contention of the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents that

out of five habitations, Puttayapalli and Puttayapalli B.C. colony

are located at one place and the other three habitations are located

at another place; if the construction of proposed Grama

Sachivalayam building is made at Puttayapalli, it would cause

NV,J W.P.No.17614 of 2020

difficulty to the people of other three habitations which are 4 kms.

away from Puttayapalli village; the construction at Godugunur

village is more suitable for all the people; and the new site

identified for construction of Grama Sachivalayam building is just

1 km. away from Puttayapalli village/present Gram Panchayat

office, is sustainable, in view of the material placed along with the

counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent and in view of the fact

that the site identified at Puttayapalli village is only Ac.0.10 cents,

whereas the site identified at Godugunur Village is double to the

land at Puttayapalli village i.e., Ac.0.23 cents which is more

convenient for construction of the public offices.

9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no

merits in the writ petition and hence, the same is liable to be

dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to

costs.

NV,J W.P.No.17614 of 2020

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

shall stand closed.

____________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 14th October, 2022 cbs

NV,J W.P.No.17614 of 2020

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

Writ Petition No. 17614 of 2020

14th October, 2022 cbs