Allowed

N.Parvathamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Jan 2022WP/164/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed a writ petition filed by the elected Sarpanch of Veerappalli Gram Panchayat. The court held that the Fourth Respondent's failure to fix the upset price for two tanks out of twenty was illegal and arbitrary, directing them to fix the price within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondent No.4 to fix the upset price for the leasing of fishing rights of Diguva Cheruvu and Pemmireddy Cheruvu tanks within two weeks.

N.Parvathamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.164 of 2022

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and Sri V.Vinod K.Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.5 to 7. Perused the material available on record.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Veerappalli Gram Panchayat, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District. There are Twenty(20) minor irrigated tanks in their Gram Panchayat and all the tanks are under the control of the Gram Panchayat. A special meeting of the Gram Panchayat was held on 21.10.20201 under the Chairmanship of the Gram Panchayat Sarpanch i.e., the petitioner herein and passed an unanimous resolution bearing Resolution No.7 resolving that all the minor irrigated fish tanks shall be auctioned in the open auction for giving lease for the purpose of fishing rights and submitted proposals to the 4^th respondent for fixation of upset price.

¶6

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a detailed representation along with a copy of the Gram Panchayat resolution has been submitted to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents by the petitioner and the Ward members requesting to take action for conducting open auction for giving lease hold rights to all Twenty(20) tanks.

¶8

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 4^th respondent has issued the proceedings dated 27.11.2021 vide Rc.No.635/2021/B, dated 27.11.2021 fixing the upset price for the lease hold rights of Eighteen(18) tanks for the fasli year 1431. The 4^th respondent did not fix the upset price for two(2) tanks by names Diguva Cheruvu and Pemmireddy Cheruvu. It is mentioned in the proceedings dated 27.11.2021 that as the concerned files of Diguva Cheruvu and Pemmireddy Cheruvu are pending with the 3^rd respondent, he will pass orders subject to the instructions received from the 3^rd respondent.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that as and when the Gram Panchayat passed resolution requesting to fix upset price for total Twenty(20)

¶10

¶11

tanks, not fixing the upset price for two(2) tanks i.e., Diguva Cheruvu and Pemmireddy Cheruvu is illegal, arbitrary and against to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act. Having left with no other option, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing this Writ Petition.

¶12

Sri V.Vinod K.Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.5 to 7 and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the existing lease holders of the said tanks filed W.P.No.22702 of 2021 and 29784 of 2021 before this Court against the proposal of the Gram Panchayat to conduct fresh auctions for fishing rights instead of existing the lease period to the petitioners there in. This Court in W.P.No.22702 of 2021 passed an interim order directing the respondents to maintain status-quo pending further orders.

¶13

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the 4^th respondent submits that in view of the pendency of these Writ Petitions before this Court, the 4^th respondent

¶14

¶15

did not fix the upset price in respect of these two(2) tanks i.e., Diguva Cheruvu and Pemmireddy Cheruvu.

¶16

Having heard the submissions of the respective counsels and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as and when the 4^th respondent fixed the upset price for remaining 18 tanks, he is supposed to fix the upset price for these two(2) tanks also.

¶17

The contention of the learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 is also untenable in view of the fact that the subject matter in those Writ Petitions is with regard to the proposal of the Gram Panchayat to conduct fresh auctions. Mere pendency of those Writ Petitions will not obstruct Respondent Nos. 3 to 4 to fix upset price for these two(2) tanks. If the upset price is fixed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4, the Gram Panchayat will be in a position to conduct fresh auction after disposal of the Writ Petitions if the Gram Panchayat succeed in those matters. Hence, the action of the 4^th respondent in not fixing the upset price for these two(2)

¶18

¶19

tanks is illegal, arbitrary and the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought in this Writ Petition.

¶20

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing Respondent No.4 to fix the upset price for the leasing of fishing rights of Diguva Cheruvu and Pemmireddy Cheruvu of Veerappalli Gram Panchayat, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District as per resolution dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Veerappalli Gram Panchayat within a period of two(2) weeks from today.

¶21

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶23

JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶24

Date: 05.01.2022

¶25

Note: Furnish C.C. by tomorrow.

¶26

B/o. tm

¶27

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.164 of 2022

¶30

Dt. 05-01-2022

¶31

N.Parvathamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Parvathamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasireddy Ravi Chandra, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Dussa Sashikala Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Elisha Vs B.Rajasekar, Principal Secretary

Ifthekar, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

New Mornigstar Travels, Vs the State of Ap and 2 Others

Y. Venkata Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh