Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 763
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
G. Shyam Prasad, J.
N. Ranga Rao & Sons Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
WP No. 12645 of 2020
Decided On : 04-08-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Narahari Babu
For the Respondent: Government Pleaders for Vinod K. Reddy, SC
A PERSON AGGRIEVED BY THE INACTION OF A GRAM PANCHAYAT IN TAKING ACTION AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS TRYING TO ENCROACH ON A ROAD BELONGING TO THE GRAM PANCHAYAT CAN MAKE A REPRESENTATION TO THE GRAM PANCHAYAT AND THE GRAM PANCHAYAT IS REQUIRED TO ACT UPON THE REPRESENTATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
Headnote:
WRIT OF MANDAMUS - INACTION OF GRAM PANCHAYAT - CONVERSION OF ROAD INTO PLOTS - ENCROACHMENT - NATURAL JUSTICE - [AP GRAM PANCHAYAT LAND DEVELOPMENT (LAYOUT AND BUILDING) RULES, 2002 - RULES 3, 4, 5, 7, 9] - THE COURT DIRECTED THE GRAM PANCHAYAT TO ACT UPON THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN THE MATTER.
Fact of the Case:
THE PETITIONER FILED A WRIT OF MANDAMUS SEEKING A DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO STOP THE CONVERSION OF A 35 FEET ROAD BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY DEMOLISHING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR CONVERTING THE ROAD INTO PLOTS WITHOUT OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM THE GRAM PANCHAYAT AND FOR REMOVING TREES WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE FOREST DEPARTMENT.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT FOUND THAT THE PETITIONER HAD AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AGAINST THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT WHO WAS TRYING TO INTERFERE WITH THE POSSESSION OF HIS BATHROOM-CUM-LATRINE AND THAT HE COULD APPROACH A CIVIL COURT FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THE COURT ALSO FOUND THAT THE PETITIONER COULD MAKE A REPRESENTATION TO THE GRAM PANCHAYAT AGAINST THE 4TH RESPONDENT WHO WAS TRYING TO ENCROACH ON THE ROAD BELONGING TO THE GRAM PANCHAYAT.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAD AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AGAINST THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT WHO WAS TRYING TO INTERFERE WITH THE POSSESSION OF HIS BATHROOM-CUM-LATRINE? 2. WHETHER THE PETITIONER COULD MAKE A REPRESENTATION TO THE GRAM PANCHAYAT AGAINST THE 4TH RESPONDENT WHO WAS TRYING TO ENCROACH ON THE ROAD BELONGING TO THE GRAM PANCHAYAT?
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT HELD THAT THE PETITIONER HAD AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AGAINST THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT WHO WAS TRYING TO INTERFERE WITH THE POSSESSION OF HIS BATHROOM-CUM-LATRINE AND THAT HE COULD APPROACH A CIVIL COURT FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE PETITIONER COULD MAKE A REPRESENTATION TO THE GRAM PANCHAYAT AGAINST THE 4TH RESPONDENT WHO WAS TRYING TO ENCROACH ON THE ROAD BELONGING TO THE GRAM PANCHAYAT.
Final Decision: THE COURT DIRECTED THE GRAM PANCHAYAT TO ACT UPON THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN THE MATTER.
ORDER :
G. Shyam Prasad, J.
1. This is a writ of mandamus filed by the petitioner declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 and 3 in considering the petitioner's representation dated 7.6.2020 to take necessary action against 4th respondent for converting the 35 feet wide road into plots in a layout earmarked road in Survey No. 484 situated at Kirekera Panchayat, Hindupur Mandai, Anantapur District.
2. The 4th respondent-T. Rajasekhar without having any right over an extent of 35 feet road trying to convert the road into plots without obtaining any approval of the 2nd respondent-the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Kirekera Village. It is further alleged that the 4th respondent had removed 7 trees situated besides the road without obtaining prior permission from the Forest Department. The road was meant for public purpose, and it was ear marked by the Gram Panchayat. It is also alleged that the 4th respondent has been trying to demolish Bathroom-cum-latrine in the site of the petitioners in an extent of 15 feet on East-west and 20 feet on North-South of site in Sy. No. 48/1, situated at Kirekera Village.
3. Heard arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioners. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, who takes notice on behalf of R1, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, who takes notice on behalf of R2 and learned Government Pleader for Home, who takes notice on behalf of R3, and disposed of the matter with the consent of all the parties at the stage of admission.
4. On consideration of the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents, it is obvious that the petitioner is seeking a remedy against 4th respondent that he is trying to occupy the land shown as 30 feet road by converting the same into plots, and in that process removed 7 trees situated besides the road, without obtaining prior permission from the Forest Department.
5. The first relief sought for by the petitioner is against the 4th respondent, who is a private respondent who is trying to demolish bathroom-cum-latrine in Sy. No. 481.
6. In fact, the petitioner has got an alternative remedy against the private person who is trying to interfere into the possession of his bathroom-cum-latrine. He can as well approach a civil Court and seek for permanent injunction.
7. As far as the other relief is concerned, the petitioner may make a representation to the Gram Panchayat against the 4th respondent who is trying to encroach into the road belongs to the Gram Panchayat.
8. In fact, there are many disputed questions of facts to be decided in this writ petition. Unless the petitioner comes with all the material, it is not possible to resolve the questions of facts. The petitioner has filed copy of the representation submitted to the Panchayat Secretary on 7.6.2020, and the acknowledgements to prove the receipt of representation by the Panchayat. The petitioner has filed the deed of conveyance in respect of schedule property 'A' bearing No. 481, and the plot Numbers located within the jurisdiction of Kirekera Gram Panchayat, alongwith a copy of sanction of layout by Grama Sarpanch, Kirekera Gram Panchayat. The lay out was approved subject to certain conditions by the Gram Panchayat. When the Gram Panchayat has approved the lay out, the petitioner has to challenge the approval of the lay out by the Gram Panchayat by following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 (for short "the Rules"). Rules 3 and 4 deals with the Application for Layout Permission and Minimum requirement for approval of layout, which reads as under:
3. Application for Layout Permission.-(1) Every person or a corporate body of the Government or a private corporate body who intends to undertake or carry out layout or development work shall apply in writing to the Executive Authority of such intention in the form prescribed in Annexure-A appended to these rules.
(2) The layouts prepared by the
