Ch. Venkatesh @ Venkateswara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/13534/2016 · 2025-01-07
Ninala Jayasurya
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34829 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34829 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010544672016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 13534 of Between: Ch.Venkatesh @ Venkateswara Rao The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department & Others Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Mr.SIVA S LANKA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
2. Mr.A.S.C. BOSE
3. Mr.N.SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 13534 of 2016 Ch.Venkatesh @ Venkateswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department & Others ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR REVENUE (AP) Mr.N.SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA ...PETITIONER
...RESPONDENTS
2
The Court made the following Order:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared through on line. Also heard Mr.Kurakula Siva Prasad, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 to 5 to take action against the respondents 6 to 10, for demolishing the community Gobbar Gas Plant, maintenance room and the open area of 33 cents each in Survey Nos.107/9 and 80/4 situated at Agiripalli Village & Mandal, which was allotted by the Government in favour of Harijana Community about 30 years, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to law and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the 1st respondent to take appropriate disciplinary action against the respondents 2 to 5 for their failure to remove the unauthorized constructions made in protecting the Government property, and pass such other and further order or orders…….
….to direct the respondents 2 to 4, to conduct a detailed enquiry in respect of the unauthorized occupations made by the respondents 6 to 10 in Survey Nos.107/9 and 80/4 of Agiripalli Village & Mandal, Krishna District, by demolishing the existing structures i.e., plant and toilets etc., and to submit a detailed report before the Court, pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass such other and further order or orders……. ”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that about 100 house plots were provided to the Madiga community people in the weaker section colony in Agiripalli village about 30 years back and almost all the allotties have constructed houses in the said colony. He submits that about 33 cents of land in Survey Nos.107/9 and 80/4 was earmarked for community
3
utilization purpose i.e., common area and certain area was provided for a Gobbar Gas Plant and a maintenance room was also constructed. Stating that the respondent Nos.6 to 10 in the year 2012 encroached the community land by demolishing the community toilets and the Gobbar Gas Plant as also the maintenance room and made attempts to construct the houses and the petitioner approached the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Nuzividu and filed P.L.C.No.21 of 2012, he submits that the petitioner due to old age, could not attend the matter and though initially an interim order was granted on 25.08.2012, the P.L.C., was dismissed for default on 16.08.2014. Be that as it may. The learned counsel submits that subsequently the petitioner made number of representations to the respondents 4 and 5 to protect the common area, which is a Government property and initiate action against respondents 6 to 10 and that as no action was taken by the respondents 2 to 5, the present writ petition is filed. 4. He further submits that though pursuant to the interim orders dated 21.04.2016, the 4th respondent submitted a report, nothing is divulged as to the action taken with regard to the encroachments by the respondents 6 to 10 as also others. Referring to Para No.4 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, he submits that though the authorities are aware of encroachment of lands by some villagers and construction of pucca houses, no action is taken on the premise that the Gram Panchayat and Endowment authorities are required to initiate action in the matter.
He submits that as there is abdication of duties by the respondents 2 to 5, and urges for granting the relief as prayed for by allowing the writ petition. 4
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader made submissions with reference to the averments made in the counter-affidavit. On a consideration of the rival submissions, the grievance of the petitioner is that despite occupation of the Government property by the unofficial respondents and construction of houses in the area where the Gobbar Gas Plant, maintenance room and public toilets were situated, the authorities failed to take any action. As seen from the counter-affidavit of respondent No.5, it would also appear that few people are residing by encroaching the land. Be that as it may. While stating that no records are available in the Gram Panchayat, it is asserted that if any encroachment which is liable to take action, the Gram Panchayat will follow due process of Law. 6. In the light of the averments in the counter-affidavit with regard to initiation of action, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, providing that the 5th respondent as also the 4th respondent shall take appropriate action for eviction, in accordance with the Law, by issuing show cause notices to the occupiers / encroachers in the lands of the Gram Panchayat, as also the Government, if any. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court with reference to removal of encroachments in respect of lands of Government and local bodies, inter alia by an Order dated 14.09.2022 in W.P(PIL).No.140 of 2022 & batch issued following directions:
“(i) The executive authority, i.e., Panchayat Secretary, of the respective Gram Panchayats in the State shall identify the Gram Panchayat lands, which are unauthorizedly occupied/encroached, and take steps for removal of such encroachments by issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the unauthorized occupants/encroachers in terms of the
5
procedure prescribed in Rules of 2011. This complete exercise shall be done within a period of six months from today.
(ii) So far as the encroachments over the lands concerning the Municipalities/Forest Department/Revenue Department are concerned, even if no separate Rules have been framed prescribing the procedure to be followed in the matter of removal of encroachments over those lands, the officials of the concerned Departments i.e., the Departments of Municipal Administration, Forest and Revenue, shall also undertake and complete the exercise of identification of unauthorized occupations/encroachments over the lands belonging to their respective Departments, within a period of two months from today, and thereafter, take steps for removal of such encroachments by following the principles of natural justice, i.e., issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the unauthorized occupants/encroachers, within a period of four months.”
7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought initiation of action on the official respondents for alleged abdication of duties, this Court is of the opinion that in the absence of making the concerned officers as eo-nominee parties to the writ petition, no relief can be granted. Needless to observe that the action directed to be initiated shall be taken to a logical end, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J. Date: 07.01.2025. BLV
6
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.13534 of 2016
Date: 07.01.2025 BLV