ORDER:

The petitioners are residents of Venkatapuram Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District. The petitioners contend that the said village has a common tank in an extent of Ac.1.09 cents in R.No.121/1 of the village. This tank, according to the petitioners, originally belonged to the village and was being used for various ceremonies connected with the said temple.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition contending that an Ex-Sarpanch had encroached upon Ac.0.25 cents of this land and the remaining extent of land is now sought to be used for construction of Grama Sachivalayam, Rytu Bharosa Kendram, and Primary Health Centre. The petitioners contend that such an action is clearly illegal, and as such, no constructions can be carried out in a water body. The petitioners would also point out that a special officer appointed earlier had sought to get the tank filled up by passing a resolution and the same had been set aside by the subsequently elected body of the Panchayat.

3. After filing of the present writ petition some other villagers also impleaded themselves as respondent Nos.10 and 11 in the present writ petition.

4. The 7th respondent, who is the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, has filed a counter affidavit. Similarly, respondent Nos.11 and

12 also filed counter affidavit setting out various facts.

5. Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 7th respondent submits that constructions are being carried out after obtaining necessary permissions and in accordance with law. He submits that at present there is no water body in Sy.No.121-1 and the said land, which vests with the Gram Panchayat, is being used for the purpose of the Gram Panchayat only and the said action cannot be faulted.

6. Smt. M Vidyavathi, learned counsel appearing for respondents 11 and 12 has raised various grounds, which are as follows:

a) The petitioners are not directly affected in any manner by the construction of these structures in Sy.No.121-1, and as such they have no locus to file the present writ petition. At best they could move a Public Interest Litigation.

b) The proposed location of the Gram Panchayat and other buildings has been decided by the authorities exercising their discretion and after considering all the facts. In such a situation, the discretion exercised by the authorities cannot be interfered with. She relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.R. Raghupathy and Ors., vs. State of A.P. and Ors.,1.

c) The contention of the petitioners that this land is endowment land is not supported by any document or material. In fact, respondents 11 and 12 positively assert that this land was never registered under Section 43 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and as such the land is not an endowment land.

1 (1988) SCC 364 = AIR 1988 SC 1681

d) While making allegations against the Ex-Sarpanch, the petitioners have not bothered to implead the Ex-Sarpanch as a party and as such no relief can be sought on the alleged encroachment of land by the Ex-Sarpanch.

e) The entire litigation is a vexatious litigation initiated by the petitioners for extraneous purposes and the construction of the buildings, for which funds have already been sanctioned, has been stalled.

7. The petitioners have produced a revenue record showing that Ac.1.09 cents of land in Sy.No.121-1 has been classified as tank land. This would mean that there was a tank in the said land. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hinchlal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi and Ors.,2 had held that once a water body has been excavated, the said land cannot be used for any other purpose. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that even if the said tank has been filled up, it cannot be used for any other purpose and there would be a duty cast on the appropriate authority to restore and renovate the said tank.

8. In that view of the matter, the question that arises for consideration is, whet