Court affirmed petitioners' rights to claim building permissions on Gramakantam land, reinforcing juridical precedent on land vesting.

COMMON ORDER:

In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the order of rejection of their applications in respect of granting building permission in respect of land situated at Grama Kantam of Bachupally village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in view of the resolution passed by the Bachupally Grama Sabha and also the Memo No.6442/2017-B1(Pts)-1, dated 25.03.2023 of the respondent No.2, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to process the applications of the petitioners for granting building permissions and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court has been disposing of similar writ petitions by setting aside the impugned orders and directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to process the applications filed by the petitioners for the grant of building permissions in respect of the land situated at Grama Kantam of Bachupally village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in accordance with law. The petitioners have sought similar relief in these writ petitions as well.

3. The learned Government Pleader, on merits of the case placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.704 of 2022, dated 29.10.2022, wherein it has been held that the respondent No.3 therein i.e., Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice therein and that the petitioner therein was directed to approach the respondent No.3 to take a decision one way or the other in accordance with law. Further, he placed reliance upon the decisions of single judge of this Court in the case of Banne Gandhi and Others Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and Others , [2007 SCC OnLine AP 136], and supported his proposition that under paras 2 and 3 to BSO 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders, village site, poramboke land (grama natham area/grama kantam land) always vests in the Government and is intended for being allotted as house sites in future. It is submitted that in W.P.No.14460 of 2021, the learned single judge of this Court has referred to G.O.Ms.No.187, dated 27.05.2015 under which the Gramakantam land is deemed to have been vested on Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 53, unless notification is issued under Section 58(2) of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, divesting the land from Gram Panchayat and vesting the same on the Government. Thus, according to the learned Government Pleader, Gramakantam land though is not vested in Gram Panchayat or in the Government, it is only the Government which can pass orders in respect of the said land and the petitioners i.e., individuals cannot claim right or title over the said land. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voonna Bangaraju Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh , [2014 (3) ALD 441], for the proposition that Gramakantam is not a Government land and that there is no prohibition to undertake transactions on the said lands, but the said decision is not applicable to the facts of these cases.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that this issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voonna Bangaraju (cited supra) and further that the writ petitions are filed against the rejection of the applications filed by the petitioner