Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
Bayya Mahadeva Sastry - Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1517 of 2020
Decided On : 16-06-2020
GRAMAKANAM LAND - OWNERSHIP - VESTING - GOVERNMENT OR GRAM PANCHAYAT - CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES - TITLE - POSSESSION - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - A.P. PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1994 - ARTICLES 14, 21 AND 300-A OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents in issuing a notice claiming the subject property as Gramakantam and directing the petitioners to stop the construction of the compound wall as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and a violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed ownership of the property through registered sale deeds obtained by their forefathers in 1927 and 1928 and generations of continuous possession and enjoyment. The respondents claimed the property as part of Gramakantam, earmarked for the construction of a Grama Sachivalayam (Village Secretariat).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned notice issued by the respondents was illegal and without jurisdiction. The court found that the petitioners had been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property for generations and that their title to the property had been judicially recognized and confirmed in a previous suit. The court further held that Gramakantam land, which is earmarked for the construction of houses, does not vest in the government or local bodies such as Grama Panchayats. Therefore, the respondents could not claim any title or possession in respect of the subject property.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned notice issued by the respondents was illegal and without jurisdiction? 2. Whether the petitioners had title to the subject property? 3. Whether Gramakantam land, which is earmarked for the construction of houses, vests in the government or local bodies such as Grama Panchayats?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the impugned notice issued by the respondents was illegal and without jurisdiction because the respondents had no right to claim the subject property as Gramakantam. The court found that the petitioners had been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property for generations and that their title to the property had been judicially recognized and confirmed in a previous suit. 2. The court held that the petitioners had title to the subject property because they had been in possession and enjoyment of the property for generations and their title had been judicially recognized and confirmed in a previous suit. 3. The court held that Gramakantam land, which is earmarked for the construction of houses, does not vest in the government or local bodies such as Grama Panchayats. The court relied on several precedents, including S. Rengaraja Iyengar and others vs. Achikannu Ammal and others, (1959) 2 MLJ 513, The Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat vs. V. Swaminathan and others, (2004) 2 MLJ 708, Nagarala Nirvasithula Welfare Association vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others,MANU/AP/0500/2012, Segadapu Vijaya v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others, (2015) 4 ALT 296, and Banne Gandhi and others vs. District Collector and others, (2007) 4 ALT 550.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and held that the impugned notice issued by the respondents was without any power or jurisdiction. The court directed the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners, including their construction of a compound wall, in the subject property.
JUDGMENT
U.Durga Prasad Rao, J. - The petitioners pray for Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in issuing the notice dated 13.01.2020 to the 2nd petitioner claiming the subject property near bus stand, Chintha Chettu previously known as Thane House as Gramakantam lying in S.No.240/1 and directing the petitioner to stop the construction of the compound wall as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and for a consequential order to set aside the aforementioned notice issued by the 5th respondent.
2. The petitioners' case is thus:
(a) The petitioners' forefathers purchased a portion of Pachipenta Zamindari Estate and some other properties under two Registered Sale Deeds dated 26.04.1927 and 30.10.1928 and enjoyed the same. Subsequently, the petitioner and his brother succeeded their estate and 1st petitioner being elder brother, managing the properties.
(b) When during the lifetime of their father Bayya Narasimha Sarma, some disputes arose with private parties, their parents filed O.S.No.37 of 1996 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Bobbili for permanent injunction. Initially, the said suit was dismissed and later the appeal A.S.No.59 of 2003 filed by the petitioners on the file of II Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) Court, Parvathipuram, was allowed and perpetual injunction decree was granted in favour of the plaintiff and the same attained finality.
(c) The 2nd petitioner who is a local person assists the 1st petitioner as his agent and looks after the property i.e., the subject property. Initially, there was an old tiled building which was subsequently dilapidated and removed. Therefore, to protect the property the petitioners started to construct a compound wall in the month of January, 2020. At that juncture, the 5th respondent issued notice dated 13.01.2020 to the 2nd petitioner claiming that the said property is a Gramakantam and the same is required for constructing Grama Sachivalayam and erected a sign board on 20.01.2020 proclaiming that the property is situated in S.No.240/1 and demanded the petitioners to stop construction and submit objections if any to the Tahsildar. Accordingly, the petitioners approached the Tahsildar along with their documents, but he informed that he had nothing to do with the subject land as it is within the jurisdiction of Grama Panchayat. The petitioners' family has been in possession of the subject property since 1927 and therefore the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have nothing to do with the said property. It never vested with the government. The notice issued by the 4th respondent is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Grama Panchayat Act, 1994.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 4th respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition inter alia contending thus.
(a) The subject property is the site of Grama Panchayat classified as Gramakantam covered by S.No.240/1 in an extent of Ac.0.22 1/2 cents bounded by East - CC road, West - Durga Devi Temple, South - Library and North - Bypass road. The Pachipenta Grama Panchayat proposed to construct Village Secretariat in the said site and got surveyed the land with the help of Mandal Revenue Surveyor, who after survey fixed the boundaries.
(b) While so, the 4th respondent came to know that the petitioners have encroached the subject land and started constructing a compound wall illegally without the permission of 4th respondent. Hence, a notice was issued on 13.01.2020 directing the petitioners to stop construction and submit their records. However, as of now, they did not submit any explanation and produce documents showing their title over the subject site. The documents filed along with material papers in the instant writ petition do not disclose survey numbers to identify the land. Therefore, those documents do not relate to the subject land. The petitioners having suppressed the material fac
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
