1. Writ petition challenging erection of a signboard on land claimed as petitioner's property without prior notice. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 1473
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Subba Reddy Satti, J
Appalla Sanyasamma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.19816 of 2020
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Penumaka Venkata Rao
For the Respondents: GP for Panchayat Raj, GP for Revenue, Sri N. Sri Hari
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Penumaka Venkata Rao
For the Respondents: GP for Panchayat Raj, GP for Revenue, Sri N. Sri Hari
Authorities cannot dispossess a person from land classified as Gramakantam without following due process of law and demonstrating ownership/control through mandatory requirements like the inventory list prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats (Protection of Property) Rules, 2011.
Headnote:(A) Gram Panchayat Properties - Inventory List - Mandatory Compliance - Under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats (Protection of Property) Rules, 2011, Rule 3(a), the preparation of an inventory list is mandatory for the protection of Gram Panchayat properties; failure to produce such a list prima facie invalidates the authority's claim over possession. (Para 12, 13, 16)
(B) Gramakantam Land - Nature of Classification - Possession - Land classified as 'Gramakantam' does not automatically belong to the Government in a manner that precludes registration or possession by private parties, and authorities cannot interfere with a petitioner's possession without following due process of law. (Para 14, 16, 17)
Issues: Whether the respondent authorities could legally interfere with the petitioner's possession of land classified as Gramakantam without following the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats (Protection of Property) Rules, 2011.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims ownership and possession; respondents claim petitioner is an encroacher on Gramakantam land vested with the Panchayat. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 )
3. Respondents failed to file the mandatory inventory list under Rule 3(a) of G.O.Ms.No.188 and the survey report. (Para 12 , 13 )
4. Without the Gram Panchayat filing the inventory list under G.O.Ms.No.188, the authority cannot interfere with claimed possession of Gramakantam land. (Para 16 )
5. Writ petition disposed of directing respondents not to dispossess petitioner without following due process of law. (Para 17 )
6. What is the requirement for Gram Panchayats to protect Gramakantam land under G.O.Ms.No.188?
Under Rule 3(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats (Protection of Property) Rules, 2011, an inventory list must be prepared for the protection of Gram Panchayat properties. (Para 12 , 16 )
7. Does the classification of land as 'Gramakantam' automatically vest it with the Government?
No. Occupied Gramakantam land by its nature or classification does not belong to the Government and is not included in Government lands. (Para 14 )
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in erecting sign board in the petitioner's land of an extent of Ac.0-22 cents in survey No.236 situated in R.Y. Agraharam village, K. Kotapadu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without considering the petitioner's representation dated 28.09.2020 and issuing any notice, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. In the affidavit, it was contended that originally petitioner's father was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject property for 40 years. Since the petitioner's husband died, the petitioner has been living with her father. The petitioner got the land from her father and constructed a house and thus became absolute owner and possessor of the subject property. Taxes are being paid regularly. The remaining part of the land is being used for keeping agricultural implements, livestock and hayrick, etc. An extent of Ac.20-00 cents of land, classified as Gramakantam, is occupied and being enjoyed by the villagers for four decades. While the matter stood thus, staff of respondent No.3 erected a board stating that land in question is Gramakantam and is required for construction of village secretariat. The petitioner submitted detailed representation dated 28.09.2020 to respondent No.2. However, the same is not considered. Hence, the writ petition.
3. By order, dated 22.10.2020, the Court directed the parties to maintain status quo.
4. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.3-Tahsildar. It was contended, inter alia, that caution boards were erected in Gramakantam land in an extent of Ac.0-31 cents out of Ac.00-34 cents, in survey No.236, but not at the residential portion. Pits were dug far away from the residence of the petitioner. The panchayat secretary issued notice dated 01.10.2020 to the encroachers including the petitioner. However, no explanation was submitted by the petitioner or any other encroachers. The Panchayat Secretary of R.Y. Agaraharam erected sign boards, by following the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.188 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts.IV) Department dated 21.07.2011 (for short 'G.O.Ms.No.188'). Petitioner is encroacher and unauthorizedly constructed thatched house and RCC building in an extent of Ac.00-01 cent and Ac.0-02 cents respectively. Remaining part land of Ac.00-31 cents is gramakantam land. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Separate counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.4/Panchayat Secretary. It was contended, inter alia, that Ac.00-34 cents of land in survey No.236 is classified as gramakantam and the same is vacant site. Petitioner is no way concerned with the said site. Petitioner and her father have been living in a house adjacent to the Panchayat's site. Government sanctioned buildings to establish Rythu Barosa Kendram and Wellness centre. The authority identified the subject site for construction of the buildings. Petitioner with mala fide intention to grab Panchayat's site approached the Court. After sanctioning of the buildings, work was commenced, and pits were dug for laying pillars. On 31.10.2020, petitioner produced copy of the status quo order and hence, the authority stopped the work. Subsequent to the survey conducted by the Mandal Surveyor, sign board was erected. The Petitioner is not in possession and enjoyment of the property and no tax was received from the petitioner regarding the subject site. Rythu Barosa Kendram is being constructed in an extent of Ac.0-06 cents and other building for wellness centre has not yet commenced. Village Secretariat is being constructed in a different place and petitioner is no way concerned with the subject property. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Heard Sri Sri Penumaka Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Subba Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Ms. Rosy, learned counsel representing Sri N. Sri Hari, learned standing c
