Disposed

Pamarthi Veerabhadra Rao at Bhadram, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 May 2023WP/14395/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash an order attempting to interfere with the petitioner's land possession. Relying on earlier common order directions, the court directed respondents to follow prescribed guidelines for encroachment removal rather than conducting a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction to respondents to follow guidelines in W.P.(P.I.L) No. 140 of 2022 regarding encroachment removal.

Pamarthi Veerabhadra Rao at Bhadram, Vs The State… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

BI 1

¶3

FRIDAY. THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 14395 OF 2017

¶7

Between: Pamarthi Veerabhadra Rao @ Bhadram, S/o Atchayya, aged about 71 years, OccCultivation. R/o Taduvai, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District.

¶8

...PETITIONER AND

¶9

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj Department. A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶10

The District Collector. West Godavari District, Eluru. 3. The Tahsiidar, Jangareddygudem Mandal, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District.

¶11

4. The Taduvai Gram Panchayat, Taduvari, West Godavari District. Represented by Its Panchayat Secretary.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

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 declare the action of the Respondents in seeking to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of Ac. 1.50 cents of land in R.S.No.305/3, Tanduvai Village & Gram Panchayat, Jangareddygudem Mandal, West Godavari District, without following due process of law and contrary to the order dated 7.8.2015 passed in W.P.No.27248 of 2015 arid provisions of Gram Panchayat Act as illegal, arbitrary and unjust by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus.

¶14

LA. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 17829 OF 2017)

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of dispossession of the Petitioner from Ac. 1.50 cents of land in R.S.No.305/3, Tanduvai Village & Gram Panchayat, Jangareddygudem Mandal, West Godavari District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. MRS SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 : SRI N. SRIHARI, SC FOR GRAM

¶18

PANCHAYATH

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

1 1

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶22

WRIT PETITION No. 14395 of 2017

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of Ac.l.SOcents of land in R.s.No.305/3, Tanduvai Village & Gram Panchayat Jangareddygudem Mandal, West Godavari District without following due process of law and contrary to the roder dated 07.8.2015 passed in W.P.No.27248 of 2015 and provisions of Gram Panchayat Act as illegal, arbitrary and to pass such other order or orders as the Court deems fit and proper. 2. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the record. this Court has passed interim direction on 21.4.2017 granting stay of dispossession of the petitioner from Ac.l.50cents of land in R.S.No.305/3 of Tanduvai Village and Gram Panchayat, Jangareddygudem Mandal, West Godavari District, pending disposal of the writ petition. 3. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have submitted that already the identical issue was arose before the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(P.I.L)

¶25

¶26

¶27

No. 140 of 2022 dated 14.9.2022, certain directions were given to the local bodies to follow due process of law. 4. Considering tbe said submissions, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to follow the guidelines issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(P.I.L) No.l40 of 2022 dated 14.9.2022 and take appropriate action. No costs. 5. Registry is directed to annex a copy of the order in

¶28

W.P.(P.I.L) No.140 of 2022 dated 14.9.2022 to this Order. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any,

¶29

shall also stand closed.

¶30

SD/- M. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT R^I&TRAR //TRUE COPY// SE^iSlJ^flCEft

SE^iSlJ^flCEft

To,

Thp Principal .Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat,-Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶35

The District Collector, We&t’Godavari District, Eiuru.

¶36

The Tahs'ildar, Janganeddygudem Mandal, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District.

¶37

The Panchayat Secretary, Taduvai Gram Panchayat, Taduvari, West Godavari District,

¶38

One CC to Sri. MRS Srinivas Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. N. Srihari, SC for GramPanchayath [OPUC] 7. Two CCs toGP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶39

two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies (Along with a Copy of the Order W.P.(PiL) No. 140 of 2022, Dated 14.09.2022)

HIGH COURT

DATED.05/05/2023

ORDER

WP.No.14395of2017

¶45

SfSNoHij
'g (U SEP KB3

¶46

disposing the wp without costs

¶47

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶48

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶49

¶50

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

¶51

WRIT PETITION fPILLNos, 140 of 2022,112 of 2016. 233 of 2020. 271 of 2020, 317 of 2020.12 bf 2021.130 of 2021. 208 of 2021. 240 of 2021. 259 of 2021. 4 of 2022. 94 of 2022.100 of 2022. 101 of 2022.125 of 2022.128 of 2022.129 of 2022 & 133 of 2022: WRIT PETITION Nos.12511 of 2010. 9470 of 2010.10778 of 2010. 25322 of 2011 & 29658 of 2011

¶52

(Through physicalmode)

¶53

COMMON ORDER fORAU

¶54

Dt: 14.09.2022

¶55

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, a)

¶56

The issue brought before this Court in the present writ petitions filed in the nature of public interest litigation, is regarding the inaction of the State and. its authorities in protecting the government lands of different classifications,, viz., tank land/grama kantham/burial ground/forest land/road -t margin/play ground/cart track/hill poramboke/coastal areas/grazing land etc. Since the issue is common in all the writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶57

z. At the outset, we make it clear that though the alleged encroachers of the subject government lands have been made parties to some of the writ petitions, we are not venturing into any independent allegations against any particular individual, and owing to.the public interest involved, we would like

¶58

2 HCJ a DVSS.J W.P(PIL).No.140 of 2022abatch

¶59

to examine the duty and responsibility of the State and its authorities in protecting the government lands from encroachments. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶60

The issue of encroachment of government lands/public utility lands vested in the State, which are meant for common benefit of individuals, was considered in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396, while dealing with a case of encroachment of village pond. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the appellants therein were trespassers who illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land by using muscle power/money power and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat, and observed that such blatant illegalities must not be condoned and even if houses were constructed on the land in question by the encroachers, they must be ordered to be removed and possession of the land must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that regularization of such illegal constructions must not be permitted because the constructions were made on Gram Sabha land, which must be kept for common use of the villagers of the village, and that the Court cannot allow the common interest of the villagers to suffer merely because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey

¶61

HCJ a ovss.j W.P(PIL).No.140 of 2022abatch

¶62

¶63

Shyam Sahu reported in 1999 (6) SCC 464, wherein restoration of a park after demolition of a shopping complex constructed at a cost of more than Rs. 100 crores was ordered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also referred to its another decision in Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa reported in 2004 (8) SCC 733, wherein it was held that even where the law permits compounding of unsanctioned constructions, such compounding should only be by way of an exception, and observed that the said decision would apply to the cases of encroachment of village common land with even greater force. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that compounding should only be allowed where the land has been leased to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or the land is actually being used for a' piiblic purpose of the village. The Hon'ble Supreme Court lastly referred to its decision in Hindi Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi reported in AIR 2001 SC. 3215 (followed by the Madras High Court in L. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu [2005 (4) CTC 1 Madras]), wherein the Court ordered the respondents therein to vacate the land recorded as a pond, which was illegally occupied by them, after taking away the material of the house constructed therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, having noted its earlier decisions referred to above, ultimately issued the following directions as contained in paragraph 22 of the judgment, which reads thus:

¶64

"22. Before parting with this case, we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram

¶65

4 Hcj a ovss,j W.P(PIL).No.140 of 2022&batch

¶66

Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/ Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act of for regularizing the illegal, possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, .or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land."

¶67

It is to be noted that pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State Government of Andhra Pradesh framed the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats (Protection of Property) Rules, 2011 (for short, ’the Rules of 20113, notified vide G.O.Ms.No.188, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Pts.IV) Department, dated 21.07.2011. The said Rules provide for the procedure to be followed for protection of Gram Panchayat properties and eviction of encroachments. Under Rule 2 of the said Rules, the lands belonging to the Gram Panchayats have been classified into three -------- into three categories, viz., (1) Category-A dealing with own and acquired properties, (2) Category-B dealing with gifts, donations. transfer of lands to Gram

¶68

¶69

¶70

• 5 HCJ & DVSS.J W.P(PIL).No.140 of 2022&batch

¶71

Panchayats and (3) Category-C dealing with properties vested with Gram Panchayats. Rule 3 provides for the procedure to be followed for protection of Gram Panchayat properties, in that, the executive authority (Panchayat Secretary) of the Gram Panchayat is required to prepare inventory of landed

¶72

properties of the Gram Panchayats based on FMB (Field Measurement Book)/ < FSA (Field Survey Atlas) and field inspections and the District Collectors shall instruct the Tahsildars to provide the above information to the executive authority (Panchayat Secretary) and web based solutions may be evolved over a period of time to locate Gram Panchayat lands in the public domain. After obtaining the land inventory details. Grama Sabha shall be convened to . validate the information and thereafter, a meeting shall be convened by the Gram Panchayat to discuss and approve the land inventory details by passing a resolution and any objections received shall be settled as per the recorded evidence and then, the land inventory details approved by the <3ram Panchayat shall be published in the District Gazette. If any property of the Panchayat is urider occupation of any persons. Rule 4 would provide for the procedure for eviction of such encroachments, as per which notice and opportunity of hearing shall be provided to the party concerned before proceeding for eviction. Thus, it is bpparent that the scheme formulated by the Government is a self-contained code.

¶73

6. It is unfortunate to note that despite the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) as noted above and despite framing

¶74

. 6 W.P(PIL).No.140 of 2022&baVch

¶75

the Rules of 2011, no steps are taken by the authorities of the Gram Panchayat to protect the Gran, Panchayat lands from encroachment, and similarly, no steps are being taken by the Government and its authorides In protecting the government lands, and this is evident from the fact that day in and day out, writ pedtions are being filed before this Court, in the nature of public interest litigaBon, alleging inacBon of the authorides of the State Government in protecBng the government lands and remowng B,e encroachments. As the public authorides are failing in their dudes in protecting the government lands, which are meant tor the common use of general public, despite bringing to their notice, public spirited persons are approaching this Court to intervene and direct the public authorities ti, protect the government lands from encroachments.

¶76

Considering the matter in its entirety and the significant public interest involved, we deemdeem itit appropriateappropriate toto issueii the following directions to ti,e authorities:

¶77

(i) The executive authority, i.e., Panchayat Secretary, of tire respective Gram Panchayats in d,e State shall identify «,e Gram Panchayat lands, which are unauthorizedly occupied/encroarthed, 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 procedure prescribed in Rules of 2011. This complete exercise shall be done within a period of six months from today.

¶78

•r-

¶79

HCJ a DVSS.J 7 W.P(PIL).No.140 of 2022abatch

¶80

■1

¶81

(H) 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 i 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 further period of four months.

¶82

With the above directions, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶83

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, O D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J

¶84

■■ - .-J

¶85

IBL

Pamarthi Veerabhadra Rao at Bhadram, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pamarthi Veerabhadra Rao at Bhadram, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. G.Mangamani Vs Chairman ( E.T.(Prl.Jr.Judge) and 12 Others

G.Md. Javeed, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Cheedharla Sayimma Vs the Principal Secretary

R.Sailaja, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal

Kallol Biswas Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Sunkappa, S/o.. late K. Kullaiappa, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh