The Panchayat Secretary vs Dodda Chinnapa Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 4005 Tel

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                                AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
                                     W.A.No. 784 of 2018
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

          Heard Mr. G.Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant.


2.        Appellant before us is the Panchayat Secretary of

Bachupalli Gram Panchayat, Kandukur Mandal in Ranga

Reddy District. He has assailed the legality and validity of the

order dated 31.03.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge

allowing W.P.No.392 of 2008 filed by respondents No.1 to 15

as the writ petitioners.

3. Respondents No.1 to 15 filed the related writ petition

challenging the proceedings in file No.A/4296/07

dated 04.01.2008 of the appellant in which the appellant had

stated that four different extents of lands, total admeasuring

Acs.6.15 guntas, were determined as Gramakantam lands; the

lands would be under the possession of the Government; and ::2::

being Government lands, no activities for private individuals

would be permitted over such lands.

4. Respondents No.1 to 15 contended before the learned

Single Judge that they were occupants of various extents of

land of the said Gram Panchayat from 1945 onwards. They

had constructed cattle sheds and compound wall after

obtaining permission of Gram Panchayat.

5. Appellant contested the writ petition by filing counter-

affidavit wherein he has reiterated the contents of the

proceeding dated 04.01.2008.

6. On due consideration, learned Single Judge framed the

following question for consideration:

"Whether Gramakantam is Government land and whether there is any prohibition to undertake transactions in the said land ?"

7. After framing the question as above, learned Single

Judge noted that the issue was already considered and decided

by a Coordinate Bench of this Court earlier in Voonna ::3::

Bangaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1 and held

as follows:

"This issue has been considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Voonna Bangaraju (1 supra), wherein it was held that Gramakantam is not a Government land and there is no prohibition to undertake transactions on the said lands. It was also held that Gramkantam describes the area identified for the purpose of construction of residential houses and incidental structures in a village and it is neither a Government land nor land vested in the Village Panchayat. It was also pointed out that such lands are not prohibited for sale and they are also not included in Section 2(1) of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905, which describes what types of properties are to be treated as Government properties. Reference was also made to G.O.Ms.No.100 dt.22-02-2014 issued by the then State Government wherein the Government had admitted that no records are available showing that the lands classified as Gramakantam are the Government lands."

2014(3) ALD 441 ::4::

8. In view of above, learned Single Judge answered the

question framed by holding that Gramakantam is not

Government land and is also not vested in the Gram

Panchayat. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed by

quashing the proceeding dated 04.01.2008 of the appellant.

9. On due consideration, we do not find any good reason

to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge as

he has only reiterated the legal position settled by this Court in

Voonna Bangaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

(cited supra) way back in the year 2014. No case for

interference is made out.

10. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

stand closed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 01.08.2022 LUR ::5::