Disposed

T Krishna v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Feb 2023WP/3026/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court accepted the petitioner's plea that Gram Panchayat proceedings depended on a cancelled occupation certificate. Since the appeal against the cancellation before RDO was pending and RDO was absent, court suo moto impleaded RDO and ordered disposal of the appeal within four weeks before Gram Panchayat acts.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed with direction to Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of Appeal No.49 of 2023 within four weeks.

T Krishna Vs the State of Ap — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3026 of 2023

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner claims ownership and occupation of 38.88 square yards of land in R.s.No.151/A2 of Bhimavaram Village, Vastavai Mandal, N.T.R. District. A shed is said to have been constructed in this land after raising a compound wall around the land.

¶5

The 5^th respondent had issued a notice dated 06.05.2022 to the petitioner to remove the shed and pillars. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.14489 of 2022, which was disposed of by an order dated 12.05.2022, directing the authorities not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner till the objections filed by the petitioner to the said show cause notice are considered.

¶6

The petitioner had relied upon an occupation certificate said to have been issued by the Village Revenue Officer of the said village in the proceedings before the 5^th respondent. At that stage, the proceedings had been initiated before the 4^th respondent, Tahsildar for cancellation of the certificate, said to

¶7

¶8

have been issued by the Village Revenue Officer. After due verification and after hearing the Writ Petitioner herein, the Tahsildar had passed proceedings vide R.C.B/8/2022 dated 20.12.2022 cancelling the certificate issued in her favour by the Village Revenue Officer, Bheemavaram and issued directions to the Panchayat Secretary of the 5^th respondent Gram Panchayat to take necessary action for eviction by following due process of law.

¶9

The 5^th respondent Gram Panchayat, after receipt of the said proceedings of the Tahsildar, had called upon the Writ Petitioner to show cause why action should not be initiated. The Writ Petitioner after seeking time initially had appeared before the Panchayat Secretary and forwarded his explanation. In this explanation, it was stated that an appeal had been filed against the order of the Tahsildar dated 20.12.2022 and the same is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer (herein referred to as “RDO”), Nandigama as Appeal No.49 of 2023. The petitioner sought postponement of the proceedings before the Gram Panchayat till the appeal was decided.

¶10

The 5^th respondent after taking into consideration these objections, had issued proceedings vide Roc.No.1 of 2023 dated

¶11

¶12

02.02.2023 rejecting the contentions of the petitioner and directing the petitioner to remove the constructions made in the land including compound wall and to hand over the said land. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶13

It is a case of the petitioner that the orders of the Gram Panchayat are based upon the orders of the Tahsildar dated 20.12.2022 and the same cannot be relied upon till the appeal before the RDO, Nandigama is decided.

¶14

Sri N. Srihari, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat would submit that the petitioner has occupied Government land which is used primarily for communal purposes that is for conducting local festival known as “Perla Pandaga”.

¶15

The fact remains that the proceedings initiated and completed by the Gram Panchayat are based on the question of whether the occupation of the land by the petitioner is based upon any document of title and whether the certificate issued by the Village Revenue Officer can form the basis for the claim of the petitioner. Since the said certificate itself is the subject matter of appeal, it would not be appropriate to permit the 5^th

¶16

¶17

respondent to implement the order dated 02.02.2023 without ascertaining the fate of the appeal pending before the RDO, Nandigama.

¶18

It appears that the RDO, Nandigama has not been made a party in the present Writ Petition. In the absence of the said authority as a party in the present Writ Petition, it would not be appropriate for this Court to pass any directions to the said authority. In such circumstances, this Court suo moto impleads the RDO, Nandigama as respondent No.6 in the Writ Petition.

¶19

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 6^th respondent to dispose of the appeal bearing No.49 of 2023 at the earliest and preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, the 5^th respondent may take such steps as deemed fit, in accordance with law.

¶20

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶22

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

21.02.2023 MJA

128

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.3026 of 2023

¶28

21.02.2023

¶29

MJA

T Krishna v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Krishna v. the State of Ap

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

Dommeti Veeraju, Vs The State of Aandhra Pradesh

Pasuparthi Gopi Krishna, Vs Prl.Secy., Panchayath Rural devel. dept.

S Gopal Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Chatlapalli Nagaraju, Vs Sri Goriparthi Srinivasa Rao

K Lakshmana Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Chappa Simhachalam Vs the State of Ap