Dismissed

C.Bhaskar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Feb 2024WP(PIL)/98/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner challenged construction on Grama Kantam land, claiming complete vesting in the village and voidness of private transactions. The bench noted settled possession, prior settlements, and obtained building permissions, finding no illegality warranting judicial intervention.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

C.Bhaskar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶3

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶5

W.P.(PIL).No.98 of 2021

¶6

(Through physical mode)

¶7

C. Bhaskar Reddy S/o. C. Shankar Reddy R/o. H.No.9-102, Gouripeta Bethamcherla Village & Mandal, Kurnool Ditrict, Native of Orvakal Village & Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati and 4 orders.

…Respondents

ORDER

Dt: 21.02.2024

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

¶15

Heard Sri R. Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for

¶16

the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent.

¶17

¶18

W.P.(PIL).No.98 of 2021

¶19

HCJ & RRR,J

¶20

The present writ petition is filed by way of a Public Interest Litigation, seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 4, viz., the District Collector (Panchayat Wing); the District Panchayat Officer, Kurnool District; and Orvakal Gram Panchayat, to stop construction of building made by the 5^th respondent in respect of the Grama Kantam land in an extent of Ac.0.07 cents of land in Sy.No.124/9 of Orvakal Village and Mandal. It is the complaint of the petitioner that the said land has been categorized as Grama Kantam land and as such the said land cannot be used for any private purpose, more specifically construction of buildings by the 5^th respondent herein.

¶21

It is the contention of the petitioner that an extent of Ac.22.10 cents in Sy.No.124/9 of Orvakal Village has been categorized as Grama Kantam land and several people had occupied the land and had constructed their houses. Subsequently, Ac. 0.07 cents of land had been alienated by a series of registered transactions culminating in a partition deed registered as document No.2340/2020 dated 22.09.2020 under which certain persons were shown to have obtained absolute title. Subsequently, a sale deed is said to have been executed in favour of the 5^th respondent by way of a document registered as Doc.No.4400 of 2020 dated 12.11.2020. The case of the petitioner is that Grama Kantam land cannot be

¶22

¶23

HCJ & RRR,J

¶24

W.P.(PIL).No.98 of 2021

¶25

owned or possessed by the private persons and as such the entire line of transactions relied upon by the 5^th respondent would have to be treated as null and void and the 5^th respondent cannot be permitted to construct any such building. The petitioner also states that the said building is being constructed after obtaining due permission from the Panchayat Secretary. Hence the present writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation.

¶26

It is now well settled law that Grama Kantam land is a land which is kept aside for villagers to make house sites and for construction of houses and other private purposes. ( Please see Voonna Bangaraju, S/o V. Janardhan Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and ors.,¹ ; Sagadapu Vijaya vs. State of A.P.,² ; and Bayya Mahadeva Sastry and Ors., vs. State of A.P. and Ors.,³ )

¶27

It is the case of the petitioner himself that the said land has been settled by various people long ago and various settlements have also been made on the said land. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the possession of Ac.0.07 cents of land in Sy.No.124/9 by the 5^th respondent is illegal or in any manner violative of law.

¶28

1 2014 (3 ALD 443

¶29

2 2015 (4) ALD 88 = 2015 (4) ALT 296

¶30

3 2020 (6) ALD 353 = 2020 (4) ALT 250

¶31

¶32

HCJ & RRR,J W.P.(PIL).No.98 of 2021

¶33

It is also the case of the petitioner that the 5^th respondent has also obtained necessary building permission before undertaking such construction. In the above circumstances, there is no illegality which requires to be looked into by this Court.

¶34

For the aforesaid reasons, this W.P.(PIL) is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶35

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶36

JS.

¶37

¶38

W.P.(PIL).No.98 of 2021

¶39

HCJ & RRR,J

¶40

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶41

& HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶42

W.P.(PIL).No.98 of 2021

¶43

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

¶44

21^st February, 2024

¶45

C.Bhaskar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Bhaskar Reddy 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

N Venkata Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Sai Teja Mahila Dwacra Group Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Sai Teja Mahila Dwacra Group Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Cwsn Parents Association Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.D.Chand Begum, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.D.Chand Begum and 5 Others Vs the Joint Collector Cuddapah and 19 Others