ORDER:

Heard Mr.A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondent Nos.1 to 4, Mr.I.Koti th Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 5 respondent, Mr.P.Vivek and Mr.K.Subrahmanyam representing the respondent Nos.6 and 7 respectively.

2. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents particularly respondent Nos.3 to 5 in not protecting the land situated in S.No.68 of Pakalapadu Village, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District from the respondent Nos.6 and 7, who are making illegal and unauthorised constructions without obtaining any permission from respondent No.5 as illegal and failure to discharge the executive functions conferred on them and for a consequential direction to respondents 3 to 5 to restrain the respondents 6 and 7 from making illegal and unauthorised constructions in an extent of Ac.0.08 cents in the said survey number.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that respondents 6 and 7 are making constructions in the Government land which is known as ‘Gramakantam’ in Survey No.68 of Pakalapadu Village and there is a failure on the part of the official respondents in discharging the executive duties and functions conferred on them.

4. Relying on the material filed along with the writ petition mainly, the information obtained under Right to Information Act, the learned counsel in elaboration contends that even as per the th details furnished by the Panchayat Secretary of the 5 respondent-Gram Panchayath, it is clear that the land in Survey No.68 of an extent of Ac.8.99 cents is a ‘Gramakantam land’ and despite the said position and though it was brought to the notice

th th

of the official respondents that the 6 and 7 respondents are making constructions in a part of the said land, no action was initiated restraining them from making illegal and unauthorized constructions in the Gramakantam land which belongs to the Government. The learned counsel also submits that the respondents 6 and 7 infact, are raising constructions without th obtaining permission from the 5 respondent-Gram Panchayat.

th While stating that the 6 respondent had instituted a suit O.S.No.211 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge at Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam, the learned counsel further submits that under the guise of the said suit, unofficial respondents are continuing their unauthorised construction activity by encroaching upon the Government land. He submits th that as a duty is cast upon the official respondents and the 5 respondent-Gram Panchayat to protect the land which belongs to Government and as they are not taking any steps against the respondents 6 and 7 from raising constructions in the Government land, the petitioners having failed to secure any positive response, despite making representations to the authorities and having left with no other alternative remedy, filed the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel also places reliance on the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(PIL) Nos.150 of 2019 & 31 of 2022 dated 16.09.2022 in support of his contentions and seeks appropriate directions by allowing the writ petition.

6. Opposing the said submissions, it is contended on behalf of th the 6 respondent that the Gramkantam land is not a Government land, not vested with the Government and therefore, the petitioners’ contention cannot be accepted. He submits that th the 6 respondent purchased the land in question for valuable consideration vide document No.4140 of 2018 and he is in valid possession and enjoyment of the same. He also submits that the th th 6 respondent submitted a plan for approval of the 5 respondent and therefore the allegation that constructions have been made without obtaining permission is not tenable. In so far as contention with regard to O.S.No.211 of 2018 is concerned, th the learned counsel submits that the said suit was filed by the 6 respo