Point of Law: Person averring a right to continue in possession shall, as far as possible, give a detailed particularised specific pleading along with documents to support his claim and details of subsequent conduct which establish his possession

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner for the following relief:

“….to issue a Writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents-in-proceeding for construction of “Grama Secretariat” over the petitioners ancestral property to an extent of Ac.0-25 cents situated in Survey No.58/1 (old survey No. is 58) of Rachavaripalem village of Maddipadu mandal, Prakasam District without passing any resolution of Grama Panchayati and conducting of any Grama Sabha as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.791, dated 07.11.2013 issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh and Section 4 (3) and 6 (2) of The Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dt.23.07.2020 and withdraw the efforts of making any further construction in the subjected property and pass such order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. This Court has heard Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Vinod K Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 5threspondent, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the 1st to 4th respondents and Sri S.A.Razak, learned counsel for the implead petitioner- proposed 6th respondent.

3. The implead petition, which has been filed as I.A.No.3 of 2020 is allowed as this Court is of the opinion that the implead petitioner-proposed 6threspondent is a necessary party for effective disposal of this Writ Petition. Office is directed to carry out necessary amendments.

4. Sri J.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the land, which is his ancestral property. It is mentioned that the total extent of land is Ac.0-25 cents. The petitioner claims title to the same through registered Gift Deed bearing No.7627 of 2014. The petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the property and argues that when the revenue authorities tried to prevent the petitioner from entering the land both, he and his brother, filed O.S.No.256 of 2014 before the 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, which is pending. Relying upon the contents of the Writ affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner, who is in settled possession and enjoyment of the land cannot be thrown out of the property, more so for the purpose of construction of Gram Sachivalayam. Learned counsel relies upon the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act to argue that the Gram Sabha did not pass any resolution for construction of a Gram Sachivalayam. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the documents, which are annexed to the Writ, argues that as the petitioner is in settled possession, he cannot be evicted nor can the Gram Secretariat be constructed over the ancestral property of his forefathers.

5. For the respondents the lead was taken by Sri Vinod K Reddy to argue the matter. Relying upon paragraphs 3 to 5 of the counter affidavit, learned counsel argues that the petitioner does not have possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioner’s father’s enjoyment and title is also questioned. It is also mentioned that the tax receipts do not relate to the schedule property and that the Gift Deed that is filed is merely “created” between the two parties. There is no such property according to him. The Written Statement filed in O.S.No.256 of 2014 is also relied upon to deny the correctness of the Gift Deed. The property certificate is denied as false. The house tax and water tax bills do not establish title, possession and enjoyment as per him. Therefore, Sri Vinod K. Reddy in his usual forceful style argues that the petitioner does not have either title or possession to the property and should in fact be proceeded against for perjury.

6. Learned