Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Vegi Papa Rao vs The State Of Ap on 9 February, 2023

Bench: R Raghunandan Rao

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                   WRIT PETITION No.35936 of 2022

ORDER:

The petitioners were in occupation of

Gramkantam land in Sy.No.110/1 of Kasimkota Village. The

petitioners had constructed shops in this land and were

carrying out commercial activities for their livelihood.

2. The petitioners were issued notices dated

25.06.2020 for vacating the said shops as the Gram

Panchayat of Kasimkota sought to take over this land for

issuing house site pattas under the Government Schemes.

The petitioners had got a reply issued to these notices

through their counsel on 29.06.2020. The said reply is said to

have been received by the Gram Panchayat and the Mandal

Praja Parishad, Kasimkota, on 01.07.2020.

3. The petitioners, apart from submitting the above

reply notice to the respondents, had also approached this

Court by way of W.P.No.10477 of 2020 which was disposed of

on 12.10.2020. The learned Single Judge, on the assumption

that an explanation had not been submitted by the

petitioners to the notice dated 25.06.2020, had granted time

to the petitioners to submit their detailed explanation with a

further direction to the Gram Panchayat to consider the said

explanation and to pass orders therein in accordance with

law.

4. The Gram Panchayat again issued a notice on

21.10.2022, which was affixed to the shops of the petitioners,

calling upon the petitioners to vacate the said shops within a

period of three (03) days. The petitioners had again given

their reply, through their advocate, which was served on the

Gram Panchayat on 22.10.2022. It may be noted that the

Gram Panchayat, in the notice dated 21.10.2022, had taken

the stand that the petitioners had not submitted any reply to

the notice dated 25.06.2020, despite the orders of this Court

dated 12.10.2020 in W.P.No.10477 of 2020. The petitioners

in their reply had pointed that a reply had already been given

to the notice dated 25.06.2020 and the said reply could not

be placed before this Court in the earlier proceedings. In any

event, the petitioners sought consideration of their earlier

reply dated 29.06.2020 along with their reply dated

22.10.2022.

5. As the respondents were proceeding with the

demolition of the shops, without considering these

representations/replies, the petitioners had approached this

Court by way of the present writ petition. Even while this writ

petitioner was under consideration, the shops of the

petitioners were demolished and the open space created by

the said demolition was sought to be handed over to an

association of weaker sections of society for construction of a

community hall.

6. The petitioners have now sought a direction from

this Court for a declaration that the actions of the Gram

Panchayat are clearly in violation of law, the directions of this

Court in W.P.No.10477 of 2020 dated 12.10.2020 and also in

violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

7. The association of the weaker Sections of the

society, to whom the vacant land is sought to be handed over,

has filed an application to implead itself. This application has

been dismissed by way of a separate order.

8. Sri V.V. Ravi Prasad, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners would raise the following

grounds:-

i. The Gram Panchayat had undertaken demolition

of the structures of the petitioners without

considering the replies given by the petitioners to

the notices dated 25.06.2020 and the notice

dated 21.10.2022. The Gram Panchayat, by

disregarding the replies given to these notices,

has clearly violated the principles of natural

justice.

ii. The Government had regulated the manner in

which Gram Panchayats are to evict people from

property owned by the Gram Panchayat by way of

G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 21.07.2011. This

Government order required the Gram Panchayat

to issue notices and to consider the replies of

such notices before undertaking in eviction or

demolition. The action of the Gram Panchayat is

clearly in violation of these requirements.

iii. This Court by its order dated 12.10.2020 in

W.P.No.10477 of 2020 had directed the Gram

Panchayat to consider the representations given

by the petitioners and the Gram Panchayat by

disregarding the representations/replies of the

petitioners dated 29.06.2020 and 22.10.2022 is

in violation of the directions of this Court.

iv. The Gram Panchayat has proceeded, in the

demolition of the shops of the petitioners, by

contending that the land, on which the structures

of the petitioners existed, is land belonging to the

Gram Panchayat.

v. The revenue records clearly show that

Sy.No.110/1 admeasuring about 164 acres of

land was categorized as Gram Kantam land.

9. Sri V.V. Ravi Prasad, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners contends that, this Court, in a

catena of cases, had held that Gram Kantam land does not

vest in the Gram Panchayat. He relies upon the Judgments of

this Court of Banne Gandhi & ors v/s District Collector,

Ranga Reddy District & Ors1, Bayya Mahadeva Sastry v/s

State of Andhra Pradesh2 & Sigadapu Vijaya v/s State of

Andhra Pradesh3 in the Case of Bhavani Mahila Trust

(BMT), Pedakakani, Guntur District v/s State of Andhra

Pradesh and ors4. The Gram Panchayat by undertaking

demolition of the shops of the petitioners constructed in land

which does not belong to the Gram Panchayat and by evicting

the petitioners from the said land has clearly over reached

itself and has undertaken actions which are not permissible.

10. Sri N.Srihari, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the Gram Panchayat, would contend as

follows:-

a. The direction of this Court dated 12.10.2020 was

that the petitioners would be entitled to offer fresh

explanation and the Gram Panchayat was to

consider such fresh explanation.

2007 (4) ALD 374

2020 (6) ALD 353 (AP)

2015 (4) ALD 88

2022 (4) ALD 37 (AP)

b. The Gram Panchayat, had understood this order to

mean that a fresh representation would be given by

the petitioners and as such, had informed

petitioners, in its notice dated 21.10.2022, that no

such representation been received.

c. Sri N.Srihari, learned Standing Counsel relies upon

the provisions of Section 58(1) of the Andhra

Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, to contend that

Gram Kantam land belongs to the Gram Panchayat

and as such it would be entitled to take steps to

evict unauthorized occupation of such land.

11. Consideration of the Court:-

The first issue that comes up before this Court is

the question of ownership of Gram Kantam land. This court

in the Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioner had held that lands described as Gram Kantam do

not vest in the Gram Panchayat. In the circumstances, this

Court must hold that the Gram Kantam land, which was in

the occupation of the petitioners, does not vest in the Gram

Panchayat. Consequently, the action of the Gram Panchayat

in demolishing the shops of the petitioners and evicting the

petitioners from the said lands is clearly without jurisdiction

and without any authority of law. It must also be held that

such an action is clearly violative of the rights of the

petitioners under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.