The cancellation of an allotment of land by a Grampanchayat without following the due process under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is invalid. The Grampanchayat is obligated to consider representations for renewal of a sanction plan and pass appropriate orders thereon.

ORDER :

Since the issue to be resolved in these three writ petitions relates to same property and the parties to the writ petitions are one and the same, these three writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid ambiguity in the discussion, the facts in W.P.No.19139 of 2021 are taken into consideration.

3. The brief case of the petitioner society is that on an application made by it to the 5th respondent-Grampanchayat as well as the District Level Authorities, the petitioner society was allotted land admeasuring Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.560/A/2 of Uravakonda Village and Mandal, Anantapuram District by the Grampanchayat vide resolution No.81 dated 28.03.2006. Pursuant to the resolution passed by the Grampanchayat, the 2nd respondent by letter dated 17.05.2006 informed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Uravakonda about the allotment of the subject land in favour of the petitioner society and instructing him to report the action taken by him. The 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 10.02.2011 confirmed the same and directed that the subject land has to be used for the sake of Members of the society only. The 3rd respondent also addressed a letter dated 14.12.2013 to the 5th respondent to implement the allotment orders. In view of the said allotment and the proceedings of respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner society has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and it has been carrying out the handloom works in the subject land. Subsequently, the petitioner society made an application to the Grampanchayat seeking permission for construction of a common facility centre in the subject land and the Grampanchayat issued permission on 30.05.2018 and it is renewed upto 2022. Recently, the petitioner society started construction of a compound wall and a common facility centre. While the matter stood thus, respondent Nos.4 and 5 without following due procedure, at the instigation of local politicians, are interfering with the possession of the petitioner society’s land and removed the stones erected for construction of the compound wall highhandedly and illegally and also shifted the cement and sand from the subject land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner society filed W.P.No.19139 of 2021 to declare the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in interfering with the petitioner society’s land, as illegal and arbitrary.

a) When the aforesaid writ petition came up for hearing on 03.09.2021, this Court while ordering notice before admission, directed respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to interfere with the petitioner society’s land.

b) Thereafter, the Grampanchayat passed a resolution 14 (1) dated 29.04.2021 cancelling the earlier resolution No.81 dated 28.03.2006 without there being any authority and without following due procedure as contemplated under the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) on the ground that the petitioner society did not undertake any construction activity in the subject land. After receipt of the interim orders of this Court dated 03.09.2021 in W.P.No.19139 of 2021, the Grampanchayat passed the resolution with a back date i.e., 29.04.2021 only to harass the members of the petitioner society. The same is under challenge in W.P.No.22170 of 2021.

c) Due to lack of funds, the petitioner society could not complete the construction in time. On a request made by the society, the Grampanchayat renewed the sanction plan upto 19.05.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted representations dated 18.04.2022 and 18.05.2022 to the Grampanchayat seeking renewal of the sanction plan for a further period from 19.05.2022. But, for one reason or the other, the Grampanchayat neither renewed the sanction plan nor rejected the representations of the petitioner society so far. The same is questioned in W.P.No.19839 of 2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner society would submit that the petitioner society is the absolute owner and possessor of the