Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 422
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
B.M. Kondaiah And Another - Appellant
Versus
Prl Secy, P.R.R.D. And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 35711 of 2017
Decided On : 15-07-2020
Venkata Sai Krishna Ponnuru, Advocate
SECTION 124 OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH GRAM PANCHAYAT ACT, 1964 EMPOWERS THE GRAM PANCHAYAT TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTIONS AND ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC ROADS.
Headnote:
PUBLIC ROAD - ENCROACHMENT - AP GRAM PANCHAYAT ACT, 1964 - SECTION 124 - SECTION 124 OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE GRAM PANCHAYAT TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTIONS AND ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC ROADS. THE COURT HELD THAT THE GRAM PANCHAYAT HAS THE POWER TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTIONS AND ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC ROADS AND THAT THE PETITIONERS CAN APPROACH THE COMMON LAW COURT TO SEEK A DECLARATION OF THEIR TITLE AND OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY.
Fact of the Case:
THE PETITIONERS, CLAIMING OWNERSHIP OF A PIECE OF LAND, CHALLENGED THE GRAM PANCHAYAT'S NOTICE PROPOSING TO LAY A ROAD THROUGH THEIR LAND WITHOUT FOLLOWING DUE PROCEDURE. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT CLAIMED THAT THE PETITIONERS HAD ENCROACHED UPON PUBLIC ROAD AND CONSTRUCTED A COMPOUND WALL.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT HELD THAT THE GRAM PANCHAYAT HAS THE POWER TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTIONS AND ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC ROADS AND THAT THE PETITIONERS CAN APPROACH THE COMMON LAW COURT TO SEEK A DECLARATION OF THEIR TITLE AND OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY.
Issues: WHETHER THE GRAM PANCHAYAT HAS THE POWER TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTIONS AND ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC ROADS.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT RELIED ON SECTION 124 OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH GRAM PANCHAYAT ACT, 1964, WHICH EMPOWERS THE GRAM PANCHAYAT TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTIONS AND ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC ROADS.
Final Decision: THE COURT DISMISSED THE PETITION, HOLDING THAT THE GRAM PANCHAYAT HAS THE POWER TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTIONS AND ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC ROADS AND THAT THE PETITIONERS CAN APPROACH THE COMMON LAW COURT TO SEEK A DECLARATION OF THEIR TITLE AND OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY.
JUDGMENT
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. - The petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned notice dated 08.09.2017 issued by the 5th respondent proposing to lay the road through the petitioners land admeasuring Ac.0.15 cents in Sy.Nos.114/1 and 114/4 situated at Bogyamvaripalli Village, H/o.Vempadu, Varikuntapadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, without following the procedure contemplated under the statute, as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to set aside the aforesaid notice.
2. The petitioners' case is thus:
(a) The 1st petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of a thatched house with open space to an extent of Ac.0.15 cents in Sy.No.114/1 and 114/4, situated at Bogyamvaripalli Village and the same was acquired from his ancestors. The petitioner has been paying the requisite tax regularly. The said land is surrounded by a compound wall which is in existence since several years. Later, the said land was divided among himself and his two sons and they are residing in their respective extents.
(b) While so, on 22.05.2017 a notice has been issued by 5 th respondent pursuant to the resolution No.16/2017 dated 27.04.2017 alleging that the petitioners have encroached the public road and constructed the compound wall and directed them to submit their explanation. On 31.07.2017 the petitioners have submitted their explanation, but, without passing any orders on the said explanation, the 5th respondent and his subordinates have made attempts to demolish the compound wall. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court and filed W.P.Nos.27393 of 2017 and 25151 of 2017 and the said petitions were disposed of on 24.08.2017 and 03.10.2017 respectively with a direction to 5th respondent to pass orders on the explanation submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law. Pending the above two writ petitions, a letter dated 18.08.2017 was addressed by the 4th respondent to the M.P.D.O stating that the possession certificates issued in favour of petitioners are fake and the same were not issued from his office.
(c) The petitioner further submit that at the time of passing the orders in W.P.No.25151 of 2017 on 03.10.2017, the 5th respondent submitted before the Court that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is pending for consideration, basing on which, the said petition was disposed of. Finally, on 13.10.2017 the 5th respondent and his subordinates, illegally and highhandedly demolished the said compound wall, with the assistance of the Police.
Hence the writ petition.
3. The 4th respondent filed counter denying the petition averments and further contended that the Grama Panchayat, Vempadu has passed a resolution No.16/2017 to take action to remove the compound wall constructed by the petitioners on the road without any valid permission and documents. It is further submitted that as the road intended for passage for men, cattle, material and vehicles to the colony, the compound wall erected thereon was removed at the request of the villagers by the Gram Panchayat. It is stated as the petitioners have constructed a house on the panchayat road, around 20 families are suffering for want of passage to their colony by laying a road connecting R&B main road and the petitioner has encroached an extent of Ac.0.11 cents without the permission of the Gram Panchayat as the subject land vests with the Grama Panchayat.
4. The 5th respondent also filed counter denying the averments of the petition and further contended that the possession certificate dated 19.11.2013 in respect of the subject land submitted by the petitioners is a bogus one. He further contended that the villagers have made a representation dated 26.05.2017 stating that the petitioners constructed a compound wall by encroaching the entire road and sought to take action against the petitioners. He further contended that the said demolition is made even prior to filing of this writ petition and even the structures raised by the petitioners are illegal an
