Konda Balaiah vs State Of Telangana And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5490 Tel

          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                             AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
                                   W.A.No. 704 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

        Heard Mr. E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel for

the appellant; Mr. Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned Government

Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development representing

respondents No.1 and 2; and Mr. P.Kishore Rao, learned counsel

for respondent No.3.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order

dated 23.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

W.P.No.610 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.

3. The related writ petition was filed by the appellant as the writ

petitioner taking exception to the notice dated 30.12.2021 issued by

respondent No.3. Appellant further sought for a direction to the

respondents not to interfere with his possession over two different

extents of land admeasuring 180 square yards and 250 square yards

situated in Hanwada Gram Panchayat (briefly 'the subject land'

hereinafter).

::2::

4. As per the notice dated 30.12.2021, respondent No.3 called

upon the petitioner to showcause as to why he should not be

evicted from the subject land as he had illegally encroached upon

the said land and made construction thereon.

5. Learned Single Judge was of the view that only a showcause

notice was issued. Therefore, appellant should respond to the

showcause notice by submitting explanation. Thereafter,

respondent No.3 should pass appropriate order in accordance with

law.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the

land in question is a gramakantam land. Being a gramakantam

land, it is neither Government land nor vested with the Gram

Panchayat. Therefore, Gram Panchayat had no authority to issue

the impugned notice dated 30.12.2021. As such, impugned notice

is without jurisdiction.

7. Every challenge made has to be examined in the backdrop of

the factual context. To appreciate the challenge made, we may ::3::

revert back to the order of the learned Single Judge

dated 23.08.2022, which records the stand taken by the Gram

Panchayat in the counter-affidavit filed in the related writ petition.

It was stated therein that the vendor of the writ petitioner namely

Sudhakar Reddy had no title to the subject land. Despite the same,

he had alienated a part of the subject land (180 square yards) to the

appellant by way of an unregistered sale deed dated 26.05.2010.

Another vendor of the writ petitioner namely Dasari Chegunta

Pentaiah is none other than the father-in-law of the appellant. He

also does not have any title over the subject land. But, he too had

alienated another part of the subject land (250 square yards) to the

appellant by way of an unregistered sale deed dated 22.01.2012.

Therefore, it was contended that such sale transactions were sham,

bogus, illegal and void. It was further stated therein that villagers

had lodged a complaint that while constructing water plant, they

found constructions made by the appellant on the subject land.

Building permission was obtained on 18.06.2018 from the Gram

Panchayat, during which period, wife of the appellant was the

Sarpanch and appellant was the fourth ward member of respondent ::4::

No.3- Gram Panchayat. By abusing their official positions,

construction permission was obtained surreptitiously. It was

asserted that the subject land is not a patta land but it is a

Government land to be used for common good of the villagers.

8. Learned Single Judge framed the question for consideration

as to whether the writ petition filed against issuance of showcause

notice should be entertained or not. After referring to various case

laws, learned Single Judge held that at this stage, Court need not

enter into the controversy as to whether subject land is a

gramakantam land or whether gramakantam land does not vest

with the Government or the Gram Panchayat.

9. Learned Single Judge thereafter held that the writ petitioner

had not filed any registered document to show that he is the owner

of the subject land and that the said land is a patta land.

10. Considering the objections raised by respondent No.3 that

there was manipulation of Gram Panchayat records at the relevant

time by the appellant as well as by his wife by abusing their official ::5::

positions, and in the absence of any registered conveyance deed to

show that appellant is the owner of the subject land, learned Single

Judge declined to entertain the writ petition. Ultimately, by the

order under appeal, the writ petition was disposed of in the

following manner:

As it is only a show cause notice, which has been issued by the respondent No.3, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file his reply/explanation to the impugned show cause notice to respondent No.3, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such reply/explanation being filed, respondent No.3 shall pass necessary orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that in case the Gram Panchayat relies on any survey report to support their case, the same shall be provided to the petitioner before passing any orders. A copy of the orders likely to be passed by respondent No.3 shall be communicated to the petitioner.

11. Having regard to the factual background as narrated above,

we are not inclined to examine the contention raised by the

appellant that the subject land is a gramakantam land and therefore,

respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice ::6::

dated 30.12.2021. Learned Single Judge has rightly relegated the

appellant to the forum of respondent No.3, who shall take a

decision one way or the other in accordance with law. In the

circumstances, we find no good reason to entertain this writ appeal.

12. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

dismissed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 29.10.2022 LUR/MRM