Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12115
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NINALA JAYASURYA
KODEVALA HARIBABU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
WP 32237/2023
Illegal construction on Government land meant for communal purposes without prior approval is not permitted.
Headnote:
Temple Construction - Government Land - Illegal Construction - Removal Order
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition to declare the construction of a Temple and Sheds in a specific land as illegal and to remove them, alleging deprivation of right to passage and illegal construction without permission.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the land was classified as Government land meant for communal purposes, and the construction of the temple and sheds was contrary to Government orders and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Court directed the Gram Panchayat to remove the constructions within four weeks.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the construction of a temple and sheds in the Government land meant for communal purposes without prior approval.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on Government orders stating that no site shall be used for the construction of a building intended for public worship without the prior approval of the Collector of the District. The construction of temple and sheds in the subject land was not permitted.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the Gram Panchayat was directed to remove the constructions within four weeks. The respondents 3 to 5 were to ensure the implementation of the order. No costs were awarded.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed, inter alia, to declare the action of the respondents in constructing a Temple and Sheds in Sy.No.263, admeasuring an extent of Ac.3-16 cents, situated in Kopperapadu village, J.Panguluru Mandal, Bapatla District in Poramboke Puntha, depriving the petitioner’s right to passage to the agricultural lands and trying to disposes them from the same without giving any opportunity of being heard as illegal, arbitrary etc., and against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagpal Singh and Ors., v State of Punjab and Ors.,1 and for a consequential direction to remove all the illegal constructions of temple and other sheds and all other sorts of constructions in Sy.No.263 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.03-16 cents.
2) In the Writ Petition it was averred that the petitioner is owning lands surrounding the above said land in Sy.No.263 and that the subject land is being used by the petitioner and other villagers for regular needs like cattle grazing etc. It is stated that the subject land is classified as “Poramboke Puntha” and the rain water accumulated in the said Puntha is being used for agriculture and other household needs.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing attention of this Court to the material on record i.e., Ex.P.1, inter alia, submits that Sy.No.263 of an extent of Ac.03-16 cents is classified as Government land – “Kunta” and the said land vests with the Gram Panchayat, meant for communal purposes and is being used by the local people. However, construction of a temple and some sheds have been undertaken in the said land without permission of the competent authority i.e., the 3rd respondent; and the Gram Panchayat and its Sarpanch-8th respondent are allowing such illegal constructions contrary to the law. Referring to the
Board Standing Orders and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jagpal Singh case (1 supra) the learned counsel submits that the lands classified as Kunta, Porambokes, Tank Porambokes, Tank Beds and Donka porambokes are forbidden from assignment / allotment and as such the respondents have no power, authority or jurisdiction to assign the said land. He also submits that the Government has no right to change the nature of the land. He submits that as the respondents are allowing the construction of “Temple and Sheds” in the subject land, the petitioner having failed to secure any positive response on the representations made to the respondents, is constrained to file the present Writ Petition. He submits that the construction of temple and sheds in the subject matter land is contrary to the orders issued by the Government and therefore seeks to allow the Writ Petition.
4) Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the 7th respondent, on the other hand, made submissions with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 6 and 7. Whereas, Mr.I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 9 to 11 made separate submissions.
5) Referring to the material filed along with the counter the learned counsel for the respondents 9 to 11 submits that the above said extent of Ac.3-16 cents in Sy.No.263 is called as Chakali Kunta, which includes water spread area of about Ac.1-00 cents. He submits that for the last several decades the washermen community is using the water is said pond (kunta) for washing clothes and also for conducting last rituals. He submits that the Gram Panchayat passed resolutions permitting the washermen community to develop the said extent of Ac.3-16 cents. He also submits that there is an idol of “Ankamma Devara” which is situated in between the village road and pond and with a view to create shelter to the idol, the Washermen / Rajaka Welfare Sangham started construction of small room about 9 x 12 feet with varndah with an intention to put the idol in the small room and to use the front portion for keeping the washed clothes. While stating that no
