SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 8925

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Subba Reddy Satti, J
Karri Nooka Raju – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 3387/2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A S C Bose
For the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE, N Srihari, GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP)

Administrative boundary modifications cannot be ordered by the court when the government has implemented a policy to freeze administrative units for census operations, though petitioners may seek relief after the freeze period.

Headnote:The petitioners challenged a Government Order (G.O.Ms.No. 222) which bifurcated a village to form a new Gram Panchayat, alleging that a prior resolution proposing the combination of two villages into a single Gram Panchayat was ignored. The court noted that while the petitioners' representations were not considered, a subsequent government policy had been implemented to freeze the boundaries of administrative units from 01.01.2026 to 31.03.2027 to facilitate Census 2027 operations. The primary issue was whether the failure to consider a specific resolution regarding the formation of a Gram Panchayat rendered the government order illegal. The court reasoned that since the government has taken a policy decision to freeze administrative units during the specified period, no further orders regarding the modification of boundaries can be passed at this juncture. this writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioners to make a fresh request as and when the cause of action arises.

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ order or direction more particularly one a Writ in the Nature of Mandamus by declaring the GOMs.No. 222 Panchayath Raj and Rural Development (E and R) Department dt. 13.01.2020 issued by the 1st Respondent without considering the resolution passed by the respondent 5 and 6 dt.19.12.2019 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and principal of natural justice and consequently set-aside the same and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the GOMs.No. 222 Panchayath Raj and Rural Development (E and R) Department dt. 13.01.2020 issued by the 1st Respondent, and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein /respondent No.7 in WPNo. 3387 of 2020tofile counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. A S C BOSE

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

2. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT)

3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP)

The Court made the following:

:: ORDER ::

Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Akaash, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P. Rajesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for respondents 5 to 7.

The above writ petition was filed impugning G.O.Ms.No.222 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (E & R) Department dated 13.01.2020 issued by respondent No.1, constituting Cheedika Village as a new Gram Panchayat duly bifurcating it from Dosalapadu Gram Panchayat, Nakkapalli (M), Visakhapatnam District, without considering the resolution, dated 19.12.2019 passed by respondents 5 and 6, as illegal and arbitrary.

A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.4. In para No.3 of the counter, it was contended, inter alia, that after submission of the proposals by respondent No.4 to respondent No.2 vide Lr.Rc.No.351177/2019 A1 dated 20.12.2019, the petitioners requested on 30.12.2019 to combine Cheedika and Cheedika Kothuru village and constitute them as a new Gram Panchayat. By the time the petitioners submitted the request, the earlier proposals were already submitted to respondent No.2. The petitioners’ representations, dated 09.12.2019 and 30.12.2019, are under examination of respondent No.4. A detailed report was forwarded to respondent No.7. Soon after receipt of a report from respondent No.7, a further action will be initiated.

b) In para No.7 of the counter affidavit, it was pleaded that the bifurcation of Cheedika Gram Panchayat from Dosalapadu Gram Panchayat was done based on the resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayats.

A separate counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.7. It was contended, inter alia, that respondent No.7 had passed a resolution on 19.12.2019 about the bifurcation of the subject village. However, there was no direction from the concerned authorities to commence the proceedings in pursuance of the said resolution, and the Gram Panchayat is not competent; the District Collector is competent to initiate action regarding the bifurcation of villages.

Learned Senior Counsel would submit that initially, a resolution was passed by respondent No.5 on 04.12.2019 (Ex.P2), to bifurcate Cheedika Village from Dosalapadu Gram Panchayat and to form a separate Cheedika Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, another resolution was passed on 09.12.2019 vide Ex.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top