IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.6528 of 2011 BETWEEN Kalaga Govinda.
AND ... PETITIONER The Government of A.P., Rep. by Collector, Visakhapatnam and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. S.V.R. SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE MS. T.V. SRIDEVI – R4 & R5 MR. G. ELISHA The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, learned standing counsel for third respondent as well as learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5.
2. Petitioner states that he is a social worker and espousing the cause of the villagers of Ugginapalem village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner states that the land in Sy.No.115/1 of the said village vests with the Gram Panchayat and is situated near Nookalamma Gudi in the said village. It is alleged that an extent on Ac.0.02 cents of the said land was in occupation of respondents 4 and 5, who have been granted possession certificates dated 09.12.2006 by the second respondent at the instance of the Sarpanch of the gram Panchayat. Petitioner states that the said grant is ex facie illegal apart from the fact that the said land allotted would obstruct the devotees of the temple and as respondents 1 to 3 have no power to grant the land, the present writ petition is filed seeking to cancel the possession certificates and to remove the structures raised by respondents 4 and 5.
Reliance is placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in JAGPAL
[1] SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB .
3. The second respondent, Tahsildar, has filed a counter affidavit accepting that the said survey number is classified as Gramakantam and respondents 4 and 5 were residing there for a long time by constructing thatched houses. It is stated that respondents 4 and 5 were identified for grant of permanent housing under the Indiramma Housing Program and based upon the resolution of the gram Panchayat dated 02.05.2006, Land Possession Certificates were given to respondents 4 and 5. It is further stated that the construction taken up by the said allottees is not objectionable for free flow of devotees to visit the temple and there are separate roads to go to the temple, as such the said allotted land to respondents 4 and 5 would not obstruct the devotees. Further, it is pointed out that the Sarpanch of the same village filed WP.No.29137 of 2008 before this Court, on the self same ground, which was dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/- by order dated 13.11.2010.
4. Respondents 4 and 5 filed a separate counter duly enclosing the resolution passed by the gram panchayat dated 02.05.2006 wherein it was decided to grant pattas to four individuals, which include respondents 4 and 5 and based on that, the possession certificates with respect to Ac.0.02 cents of land was granted to respondents 4 and 5 by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 09.12.2006. It is further stated that the general body of the gram panchayat passed a further resolution dated 25.07.2007 confirming allotment of Ac.0.02 cents of land each to four individuals including respondents 4 and 5 after leaving 5 yards for cement road in Gramakantam. It is stated that the present writ petition is filed only out of political rivalry between the groups within the gram panchayat.
5. I have perused the judgment of this Court in WP.No.29137 of 2008 and it is apparent the pleas therein and the present writ petition are identical. This Court upheld the grant of possession certificates to respondents 4 and 5, as they were in conformity with the resolution of the gram panchayat, referred to above. In my view, therefore, when the Sarpanch, who was petitioner in the earlier writ petition, failed in his challenge to the said possession certificates granted to respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner herein, who is a third party, as a social worker cannot stand on a better footing than the Sarpanch, who lost the earlier writ petition. Secondly, the decision of the Supreme Court in JAGPAL SINGH’s case (1 supra), which is relied upon, also appears to have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as their Lordships were dealing with a case of unauthorized occupants, who had filled the village pond and made constructions therein. It is, in fact, in those facts that directions were given that trespassers, who illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land by using muscle power/money power and in collusion with the officials, are not entitled to show any indulgence. The present case of respondents 4 and 5 is, therefore, clearly distinguishable and it cannot be said that their case falls within the case decided by the Supreme Court, as above. Moreover, since this Court had already rejected similar challenge, this writ petition is also liable to be dismissed.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. However, as the petitioner claims to be a social worker, there shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J June 5, 2014 DSK
[1] 2011 (1) SUPREME 641