Telangana High Court
Gayam Bala Jeevan Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 20 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.NOS. 32197, 32206, 32208, 32210, 32211, 32221,
32320, 32323, 32324, 32326, 32338 and 32905 OF
2024
COMMON ORDER:
In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are
challenging the order of rejection of their applications in
respect of granting building permission in respect of land
situated at Grama Kantam of Bachupally village, Kandukur
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in view of the resolution
passed by the Bachupally Grama Sabha and also the
Memo No.6442/2017-B1(Pts)-1, dated 25.03.2023 of the
respondent No.2, as illegal, arbitrary and against the
principles of natural justice and to set aside the same and
consequently to direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to
process the applications of the petitioners for granting
building permissions and to pass such other order or
orders in the interest of justice.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that this Court has been disposing of similar
writ petitions by setting aside the impugned orders and
directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to process the
applications filed by the petitioners for the grant of building
permissions in respect of the land situated at Grama
Kantam of Bachupally village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of the order in accordance with law. The
petitioners have sought similar relief in these writ petitions
as well.
3. The learned Government Pleader, on merits of
the case placed reliance upon the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.704 of 2022, dated
29.10.2022, wherein it has been held that the respondent
No.3 therein i.e., Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction to
issue the impugned notice therein and that the petitioner
therein was directed to approach the respondent No.3 to
take a decision one way or the other in accordance with
law. Further, he placed reliance upon the decisions of
single judge of this Court in the case of Banne Gandhi and
Others Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and
Others 1, and supported his proposition that under paras 2
and 3 to BSO 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue
Standing Orders, village site, poramboke land (grama
natham area/grama kantam land) always vests in the
Government and is intended for being allotted as house
sites in future. It is submitted that in W.P.No.14460 of
2021, the learned single judge of this Court has referred to
G.O.Ms.No.187, dated 27.05.2015 under which the
Gramakantam land is deemed to have been vested on
Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 53, unless notification
is issued under Section 58(2) of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act,
divesting the land from Gram Panchayat and vesting the
same on the Government. Thus, according to the learned
Government Pleader, Gramakantam land though is not
vested in Gram Panchayat or in the Government, it is only
the Government which can pass orders in respect of the
said land and the petitioners i.e., individuals cannot claim
right or title over the said land. It is further submitted that
the petitioners have been relying upon the decision of the
1 2007 SCC OnLine AP 136
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voonna
Bangaraju Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 2, for the
proposition that Gramakantam is not a Government land
and that there is no prohibition to undertake transactions
on the said lands, but the said decision is not applicable to
the facts of these cases.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the
other hand, submitted that this issue has already been
decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Voonna Bangaraju (cited supra) and further that the writ
petitions are filed against the rejection of the applications
filed by the petitioners for building permissions and
therefore, the petitioners have individual grievances and
therefore, they need not be clubbed with the PIL. He
further submitted that this Court has been directing the
respondents to process the application for grant of building
permission in accordance with law and therefore, there is
no prejudice caused to the revenue by the said orders. It is
submitted that the government has not challenged any of
2 2014 (3) ALD 441
the orders passed by this Court directing the respondents
to process the applications and therefore, the said orders
have remained unchallenged and have become final at this
stage. He further placed reliance upon the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voonna
Bangaraju (cited supra), which has been followed by the
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.784 of 2018. Thus,
he prayed that the impugned orders of rejection be set
aside and the respondents be directed to process the
applications of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders
in accordance with law.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the
material on record, this Court finds that the decisions
relied upon by the learned single judges in the earlier writ
petitions and as well as the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.784 of 2018 is that of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Voonna Bangaraju (cited supra),
wherein it was held that the Gramakantam land is neither
a Government land nor land vested in the Village
Panchayat. It has not been brought out that the said order
has been challenged by the revenue before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and therefore, it has become final. The
decisions relied upon by the learned government pleader
are both the decisions of the learned single judges and
were passed without considering the judgment of the
Division Bench in the case of Voonna Bangaraju (cited
supra). The decision in the case of Banne Gandhi and
Others (cited supra), is prior to the decision of the Division
Bench in the case of Vonna Bangaraju (cited supra), while
the decision in W.P.No.14460 of 2021 is passed without
considering the said judgment. Further, in the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.704 of 2022,
the Hon'ble Division Bench was considering whether that
the High Court can interfere at the stage of issuance of
show cause notice and had directed the petitioner therein
to the forum of respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 was
directed to take a decision in one way or the other in
accordance with law.
6. The Division Bench has further observed that
the learned single judge in the said case had framed the
question for consideration as to the whether the writ
petition filed against the issuance of show cause notice,
should be entertained or not and therefore, the Court need
not enter into the controversy as to whether the subject
land is a Gramakantam land or whether Gramakantam
land does not vest with the Government or the Gram
Panchayat. Therefore, this Court finds that the decision of
the Division Bench in the case of Voonna Bangaraju (cited
supra) has neither been set aside, suspended nor
distinguished by any of the decisions relied upon the
learned government pleader. On the other hand, this Court
has been relying upon the said decision to set aside the
impugned orders and directing the respondents to
reconsider the applications of the petitioners for building
permissions in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court
is inclined to pass similar orders as in W.P.No.30042 of
2023 by setting aside the impugned orders and directs the
respondents No.2 and 3 to process the applications filed by
the petitioners for grant of building permission in respect
of the subject plot situated at Grama Kantam land at
Bachupally village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, in accordance with law within a period of two (2)
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Registry is directed to annex the copies of the order dated
13.08.2024 in W.P.No.30042 of 2023 and also
W.P.No.30331 of 2023, dated 18.07.2024 along with this
order for ready reference.
7. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these
writ petitions, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 20.01.2025
bak
