Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.A.MUKTADAR
Ghanta Narasimha Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
W.P. 5905/78
Decided On : 03-30-79
Advocates Appeared :
.
Held : The word tanks used in sub-section (1) of Sec 85 of the Act cannot be narrowly interpreted to mean only such of the water of which is used for purposes of drinking, but it would also cover tanks the water of which is used not only for drinking purposes of men and cattle but also for washing purposes If the word tanks appearing in sub-section (1) of Sec 85 of the Act meant tanks, the water of which is only used for drinking purposes, then there was no necessity for the Legislature to enact sub-section (1) (a) of Sec 86 which specifically lays down that the Gram Panchayat in the interests of Public health, may not only prohibit, but also regulate the washing of animals or of clothes or other articles in any public spring etc, Therefore the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to assign such a portion of land in the tank
WP Allowed
( 1 ) THE petitioners who are 57 in number have filed this writ petitionchallenging the proceedings of the Tahsildar Sattenapalli, in L. Dis. No. 6072/78-B4 dated 25-7-1978 granting pre-assignment permission to M. Ramakrishna Rao of Peda Makkena Village who is respondent No. 3 herein, to cultivate an extent of Ac. 2-50 cents of land in S. No. 203-1 situated in Peda Makkena Village pending examination for the grant of patta on the ground that the order in the said proceedings is illegal and must be set aside.
( 2 ) THE relevant facts briefly are that there is a tank known as "manganapudi Laxmaiah Tank" of an extent of Ac. 17-49 guntas in S. Nos. 193-3, 203-1, 203-1-3 and 168-3 situated within the limits of Peda makkena Gram Panchayat, Sattenapalli taluk, Guntur District the petitioners allege that this tank was dug by the ancestor of petitioner No. 57 several years ago for purposes of providing drinking water for men and cattle that the tank is situated in the midst of four viliages and the ryots of the said villages make use of the water of the tank for themselves and for their cattle. It is the case of petitioner No. 57 that he is in management of the said tank.
( 3 ) IT is also alleged that the tank in question is a public tank which vests in the Gram Panchayat of Pedda Makkena village (Respondent no. 4 herein) under Ssction 85 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats act, 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and that the 4th respondent had control over the maintenance of the tank for keeping it in good condition to provide drinking water for the public. It is alleged that some of the petitioners possessing lands around the tank have been using the water of the tank for men and cattle, and that there is no other source of supply of drinking water in that area. It is stated that the water will be stored in about Ac. 12-00 of tank bed and there are bunds in the remaining area. It is also alleged that the tank is not silted and not in disuse. and public have acquired the right to use the water of the tank for drinking purposes. As already stated, the Tahsildar (Respondent herein) has temporarily assigned an extent of Ac. 2-50 in S. No. 203-1 in his Proceedings l. Dis No. 6072/78/b4 dated 25-7-1978 permitting the 3rd respondent to cultivate a portion of the tank. Armed with this permission, the third respondent is attempting to break open the tank bunds with the help of Hari-jans for driving out the water and for bringing the tank bed under cultivation.
( 4 ) COUNTERS have been filed on behalf of the Tahsildar (Respondent no. 2) M. Ramakrishna Rao (Respondent No. 3) and the Gram Panchayat (Respondent No. 4 ). The 2nd respondent i. e. the Tahsildar in paragraph no. 3 of his counter admits that S. Nos. 193-3, 203-1, 203-1-3 and 168-3 comprising the tank and the pond in dispute are classified as poramboke lands, and registered as tank and pond porambokes as per the Re-survey and Re-settlement Register of Peda Makkena village, and that in the village Settlement Register, there is no individual mentioned as the owner, and it is registered as Government tank. It is further stated that there is no documentary evidence to prove that the tank is being maintained by the petitioners herein, and that it is not an irrigation tank and also not in use as fresh water tank either for men or cattle. It is also admitted that till the advent of Nagarjunasagar Project the tank was used by the public of Peda Makkena village. It is further stated in the counter :-"the water is not stagnating in the tank. It also becomes silted to a great extent and no benefit is being derived from the tank". It is also stated that the Gram Panchayat did not object to the transfer of the land at the time of submission of conversion proposals.
( 5 ) IN the counter filed by the 4th respondent i. e. the Gram Panchayat of peda Makkena village, it is stated that the Gram Panchayat never agreed for conversion or assignment of the tank for cultivation
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.