Point of Law: since no modalities have been set forth for such use. It is clear that as on date, there is no clear-cut protocol as to who will control the utilization of the building or the community purposes for which it will be used,

ORDER :

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.

1. This Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) is filed stating that Government sanctioned house-sites to the Scheduled Caste Hindu Madiga community in the year 1970 in Survey No.113/1 in an extent of Ac.6.52 cents in lagadapadu village, Pedakurapadu Mandal. In the above survey number, for community purpose, Government land was excluded for construction of Telugu Baptist Church and Seventh Day Church and, accordingly, both Churches were constructed. There was one well in the survey number for use of the colony people, but later on, people used the water supplied by the Panchayat. The respondents 7 to 11 are making construction of a Church in the Government land in between Plot Nos.87 and 88 to an extent of about Ac.0.05 cents, without any permission, though the community had decided to use the land for construction of a community hall and, accordingly, the petitioner had made a representation dated 28.06.2017 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur and on such representation, respondent No.3 had referred the matter to the Tahsildar, Pedakurapadu Mandal, who issued notice and fixed a board stating that the land is a Government land and whoever encroaches upon the land, shall be punished. On such board being put up, no further construction had taken place. But, taking advantage of change of Government, respondents 7 to 11 forced the Tahsildar to remove the board and were going ahead with illegal construction in the Government land. It is stated that as two Churches are already existing, there was no necessity for constructing another Church.

2. This Court, by order dated 05.11.2019, had observed that if any construction is being raised by respondents 7 to 11, the same shall be subject to final outcome of the Writ Petition.

3. Respondent No.2, i.e. the District Collector, has filed counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that in the year 1971, an extent of Ac.6.52 cents in Sy.No.113/1 of Lagadapadu village, Pedakurapadu Mandal, was acquired by the Social Welfare Department. Lay-out was prepared with 93 plots at the rate of Ac.0.05 cents per plot, leaving an extent of Ac.0.80 cents and Ac.0.20 cents at separate locations, earmarking for communal sites. House-site pattas were distributed to 82 beneficiaries of Scheduled Caste (S.C.) community of the same village and Plot Nos.83 to 93 were allotted to others. Later, one of the communal sites with Ac.0.20 cents was also distributed as house-sites to another seven people of the same village. As per the lay-out, the land located between Southern side of Plot No.87 is topographically demarcated as ‘Well’ and the same was not assigned with any plot number. However, there is no well on ground. On the complaint received from the petitioner, the Tahsildar erected sign board on the land indicating that the land belongs to Government and any type of construction in the location is barred. It is stated that there are two rival groups in S.C. (Madiga) community and majority community people are planning to construct a communal hall and the construction upto basement level was completed earlier. They requested the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, to take necessary action for removal of the sign board erected by the Tahsildar, which is opposed by the other group in the same community. The other group requested to restore the existing well for their community needs. It is stated that as the subject land was left as communal site and it was handed over by the Tahsildar to the Gram Panchayat for utilizing the same for future communal needs of the S.C. community, the Gram Panchayat has to utilize or permit to utilize the said land through its resolution.

4. Respondent No.1, i.e. Secretary to Government, Revenue (Land, Endowments & DM) Department, respondent No.3, i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, and respondent No.4, i.e. the Tahsildar, Pedakurapadu Mandal, also filed counter-affidavits similar to that of respondent No.2.

5. There is one more affidavit styled