Disposed

Cherukuri Srinivasa Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Jul 2022WP/2442/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Gram Panchayat's attempt to construct a community hall in Panchayat land under Article 226. The Court found no illegality, reasoning that the land was intended for a library funded by a private individual, which was within Panchayat resolution powers. The writ petition was closed without order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs.

Cherukuri Srinivasa Rao Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2442 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Cherukuri Srinivasa Rao, , S/o. Papa Rao, Hindu, Aged about 48 years, R/o. D.No.2-149 Pasharlapudi lanka Village, 'Near Ramalayam, Mamidikuduru Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development , Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶12

The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 4. The Divisional Level Panchayath Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District.

¶13

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mamidikuduru Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶14

The Thasildhar, Mamidikuduru mandal , East Godavari District.

¶15

The Secretary, Gramapanchayath, Pasarlapudi Lanka, Mamidikuduru Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

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 to issue an order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to construct community hall in S.No. 134, Gramakantam land Pasarlapudi lanka village, Mamidikuduru Mandal, East Godavari District which is belongs to Panchayath land as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the Respondents not to construct community hall in

¶18

”*">v^S.No. 134, Gramakantam land Pasarlapudi lanka village, Mamidikuduru . "Randal, East Godavari District.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

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 direct the Respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.12.2020, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT. K.S.G. PADMAVATHI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 4 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondents 2,3 & 6: GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents 5 & 7 : SRI I KOTI REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶24

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶25

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶26

WRIT PETITION No. 2442 of 2021

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

IJcard learned eounsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 4, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 6, and Sri 1. Koti Reddy, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for respondent No. 5 and 7.

¶29

The present writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in trying to construct a community hall in Survey No. 134. Gramakantam land Pasarlapudi Lanka Village, Mamidikuduru^Mandal. East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and some other villagers occupied Grama Kantam Land of panchayat in Survey Nos. 134, 148/2 situated in Pasarlapudi Lanka Village, Mamidikuduru Mandal, East Godavari District, by raising^huts and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, one of the villager, Sri Kudupudi Srinivas, filed a writ petition^No.40169of 2014 before the Pligh Court of .ludicature at Hyderabad^{fortheStateof} ■felangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh to declare the action of the

¶31

¶32

respondents therein in not taking any action for removal of the encroachments on the lands belonging to the 6"’ respondent-Gram Panchayat as illegal and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. By an interim order dated 30.12.2014 the 2”^' respondent therein was directed to consider the representations dated 31.10.2014 and 02.12.2014 of the petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the said order.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after receiving the above order, the respondent-Gram Panchayat^removed the encroachments made by the petitioner in Survey Nos. 134, 148/2 vide Panchanama Report dated 13.02.2015. After such removal, the 7 111 respondent-Gram Panchayat passed a resolution dated^{13.02.2015tothe} effect that where encroachments were removed that land to be made use of constructions would be made which are purely meant for Government buildings only like public offices, health centre, livestock. hospital, public park, etc and also other community halls. While so, the petitioner came to know that the respondent-Gram Panchayat passed another resolution granting permission for construction of a community hall for private use of a particular community is in^{violationofthe} resolution dated 13.02.2015.

¶34

¶35

Lccirned standing counsel for the 7 ih respondent-Ciram Panchayat submits that the 7/111 respondent filed eounter inter alia stating that there is panchayat vacant site to an extent of 2 cents in the Panchayat Office premises. The Gram lOnchayat passed the resolution^{dated26.10.2020} for construction of the RCC building for purpose of library. The library building will be constructed with the funds of one Sri Udru Laksmikantha Rao. IAS, in the name of his father. On the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat and upon the application^ofSri Udru Rajasekhar, IAS, the 2'"^ respondent granted permission vide proceedings dated 20.08.2020. The petitioner should not have any grievance for establishing the library in the village. Only due to malafide intention he filed the present writ petition. th In view of the averments in the counter filed by the 7 respondent, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality or arbitrariness as alleged by the petitioner.

¶36

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No order^astocosts.

¶37

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending^shall

¶38

stand closed.

¶39

S/d-G. HELANAIDU ASSISTANTREGISTRAR

¶40

//TRUE COPY//

¶41

To 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development ,The State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶42

The District Collector, East Godavari District at^Kakinada. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, East^{GodavariDistrict.} 4. The Divisional Level Panchayath Officer, Amalapuram,^{EastGodavariDistrict.} 5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mamidikuduru Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶43

The Thasildhar, Mamidikuduru mandal , East Godavari^District. 7. The Secretary, Gramapanchayath, Pasarlapudi Lanka,^{MamidikuduruMandal,} East Godavari District.

¶44

One CC to SRI. K.S.G. PADMAVATHl Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, High Court of Andhra' Pradesh. [OUT]

¶45

10 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra^{Pradesh.[OUT]}

¶46

11.One CC to SRI. I KOTI REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYT^[OPUC]

¶47

12.Two CD Copies

MSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:18/07/2022

ORDER

WP.No.2442 of 2021

//<?
(g 1 9 AUG /O/"! C3\‘ico/f
Currant Section ^

¶54

DISPOSING OF WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Cherukuri Srinivasa Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cherukuri Srinivasa Rao 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. N. Manasseh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Satyanarayana Murthy, Vs State of Ap

Padileti Chenchamma, W/o. Late P.Venkataswami Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pericharla Nitya Srivalli Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

C.Koteswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. B.A.M.S.M. Constructions Vs The Superintending Engineer