Judgment : Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D. Panduranga Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri D.V. Sitharama Murthy, learned senior counsel and Sri N. Ashwain Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 2. The petitioners challenge the proceedings of the 1st respondent in G.O. Rt. No.1500 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts.III) Department, dated 05-10-2010, by which the 1st respondent accorded permission to the District Collector, Krishna for alienation of Ac.0.15 cents of common vacant land of Gram Panchayat, Kanur along with the Mandir therein to the 4th respondent herein on payment of market value prevailing in 1997 as a special case in terms of G.O.Ms. No.215 and G.O.Ms. No.323 dated 25-06-2001 and 23-10-2001 respectively. 3. The petitioners are residents of Srinivasa Nagar colony and adjacent colonies of Kanur village and the original owner of R.S. No.245/2 got the approved layout from the Urban Development Authority in L.P. No.37 of 1984, in pursuance of which the colony came up. An extent of Ac.0.35 cents in the layout was earmarked for public purpose, which was gifted by the land owners to the Gram Panchayat. The 4th respondent appeared to have made an application to the Gram Panchayat for allotting a plot of Ac.0.15 cents in the said extent of Ac.0.35 cents and the Gram Panchayat resolved to make that allotment by resolution No.585 dated 11-02-1997 for construction of Gita Mandir. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj rejected the request of the Panchayat for such permission and later he required the local market value to be ascertained from the Mandal Revenue Officer and to be submitted along with the bye-laws of the society. While so, the District Collector directed on 11-06-2007 that the Gram Panchayat shall take over the unauthorized and illegal construction in that land, against which the 4th respondent filed an appeal before the Government, which passed an order in Memo dated 01-10-2007 finding that the construction of Sri Sai Gita Mandir was in the land vested in the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat is not competent to alienate or transfer such property even for charitable purpose unless such transfer of property is approved by the Council of Ministers as required by G.O.Ms. No.215 and G.O.Ms. No.323. No.215 and G.O.Ms. No.323. When the 4th respondent filed W.P. No.21586 of 2007, it was dismissed for want of mention of any legal basis for the claim and the resumption of the property through the order of the 2nd respondent was held to suffer no infirmity. The 2nd respondent also issued a show-cause notice to the then Sarpanch for encouraging the unauthorized construction and the Gram Panchayat took over possession of the temple on 05-11-2007. The maintenance of Sri Sai Gita Mandir was directed by the 2nd respondent to be governed by the working instructions issued in the proceedings dated 28-05-2008. In pursuance of the same, the Gram Panchayat appointed a body of seven members, including the wife of the 1st petitioner herein. When the temple was being managed by the Committee, it became popular and the petitioners are regular visitors to the temple being interested in its welfare. While so, the impugned Government Orders were issued, which could not have been issued, as the Government rejected the request earlier on merits, which rejection was upheld by this Court in W.P. No.21586 of 2007. When the Government has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, it cannot entertain the very same issue at the instance of an MLA and the power to alienate, even if it exists with the Government, has to be exercised fairly, reasonably and in public interest. Rule 3(2) of the Statutory Rules of 2001 provides for such alienation only to private institutions/associations/individuals of great reputation and charitable in nature in deserving cases, which proposal shall be placed before the Cabinet for decision. As the 4th respondent does not satisfy any of the conditions for alienation, the impugned order not specifying any reasons even for not fixing the market value as on the date of the encroachment, cannot be sustained. The writ petitioners, therefore, desire the proposed alienation to be declared illegal. 4. The 1st respondent in the counter-affidavit through its Joint Secretary stated that the construction of Sri Sai Gita Mandir was completed during the pendency of the proposal before the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj/Government and in accordance with the rules governing acquisition and transfer of property by the Gram Panchayat etc., under G.O.Ms. No.215 dated 25-06-2001, the power of alienation or transfer shall be, of course, to private institutions/associations/individuals of great reputation and charitable in nature in deserving cases. No.215 dated 25-06-2001, the power of alienation or transfer shall be, of course, to private institutions/associations/individuals of great reputation and charitable in nature in deserving cases. The 1st respondent claimed that the 4th respondent again filed an application after the dismissal of its writ petition through local Legislator and the file was circulated up to the Chief Minister who agreed for the proposal in principle in accordance with the rules. In the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 20-09-2010, considering that the temple was already constructed and poojas and other rituals were going on, the Cabinet approved the proposal, on which the impugned G.O. was issued. The orders in G.O. Rt. No.1500 are in accordance with the prescribed procedure and hence, the writ is requested to be dismissed. 5. The 3rd respondent in its counter-affidavit through the Panchayat Secretary also stated that the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj, after originally rejecting the request of the Gram Panchayat, later asked the Panchayat to obtain local market value from the Mandal Revenue Officer and the bye-laws of the 4th respondent, which were submitted by letter dated 26-10-1999. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj then requested by Memo dated 10-12-1999 to inform whether the Sangam would take the site on paying the local market value. In the meanwhile, the construction of Sri Sai Gita Mandir was completed in 2002 and the worship was being performed. Then, the Panchayat was asked to take over the unauthorized and illegal construction and also to submit its explanation. The appeal by the 4th respondent to the Government resulted in grant of interim stay of the orders of the 2nd respondent and later the appeal was dismissed. The Gram Panchayat then took possession of the Mandir and the daily worship is being performed in accordance with the working instructions issued by the District Collector. Subsequently, the impugned G.O. was issued for alienation of the land. Hence, the 3rd respondent also desired the writ to fail. 6. The 4th respondent in its counter-affidavit through its Secretary stated that it is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with the aim of promoting service of mankind and taking up worship in temples. Subsequently, the impugned G.O. was issued for alienation of the land. Hence, the 3rd respondent also desired the writ to fail. 6. The 4th respondent in its counter-affidavit through its Secretary stated that it is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with the aim of promoting service of mankind and taking up worship in temples. The members are all women and senior citizens and the society intending to construct a temple for Sri Shirdi Sai Baba, approached the Gram Panchayat and the members of the society themselves donated substantial money to construct the temple, in which idols of Seetharamanjaneya, Lord Sri Krishna, Ganesh, Durgamatha and Dattatreya were also installed, spending about Rs.30,00,000/-. While the 4th respondent was running the temple under its management, the Council of Ministers by its resolution on 20-09-2010 approved the transfer on the market value prevailing in 1997, which was accordingly paid. There was no illegality in the alienation and the 4th respondent is prevented from managing the temple by reason of interim directions of this Court. The 4th respondent is not claiming any personal possession or title in the land in question and the temple was constructed for public purpose for public worship. The 4th respondent invested huge money in the temple and the local Legislator as representative of the people, brought the problems to the notice of the Government, more so in view of the popularity of the temple. The Government acted in accordance with the rules and not on any extraneous grounds and the management of the temple cannot be run by the Gram Panchayat in exercise of any power. The religious sentiments of the members of the 4th respondent are hurt and hence, the 4th respondent also desired the interim orders to be vacated and the writ to be dismissed. 7. While admitting the writ petition, the impugned G.O. was suspended by interim directions dated 08-10-2010 pending further orders and the interim directions continue to be in force. 8. The admitted facts are that Srinivasa Nagar colony in Kanur village was developed in the approved layout in R.S. No.245/2 of the village and an extent of Ac.0.35 cents of land in the layout gifted by the land owners to the Gram Panchayat, was earmarked for public purpose. 8. The admitted facts are that Srinivasa Nagar colony in Kanur village was developed in the approved layout in R.S. No.245/2 of the village and an extent of Ac.0.35 cents of land in the layout gifted by the land owners to the Gram Panchayat, was earmarked for public purpose. When the 4th respondent, a registered society, applied to the Gram Panchayat for allotment of Ac.0.15 cents of land out of the said Ac.0.35 cents, the Gram Panchayat resolved in favour of such request on 11-02-1997. Sri Sai Gita Mandir with the idols of Sri Shirdi Sai Baba and other Gods and Goddesses, was claimed to have been constructed in entirety by 2002 and till the directions of the District Collector, Krishna on 11-06-2007, there was no interference with the structure of the said Mandir or its management by the 4th respondent or the conduct of the day to day worship in the said Mandir, though, in the meanwhile, there was correspondence between the Gram Panchayat and the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj for according permission for alienation of the said land, which the Commissioner did not grant. 9. The proceedings, dated 11-06-2007 referred to the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj rejecting the request of the Gram Panchayat and the repeated requests of the Gram Panchayat being under correspondence, while the Panchayat Secretary reported on 08-06-2002 itself that the construction of the said Mandir and worship programmes were being performed. The proceedings dated 11-06-2007 directing the Gram Panchayat to take over the said unauthorized and illegal construction immediately, did not trace such instructions to the exercise of any statutory or administrative power under any specific provision or principle, except stating that since people’s sentiments are attached to Sri Sai Gita Mandir, such instructions were given. The information from the Gram Panchayat to the Collector on 05-11-2007 is that the said Mandir was taken under the control of the Gram Panchayat on 05-11-2007 before five mediators under a Panchanama. The Panchayat Secretary was later directed by the Collector by the proceedings dated 28-05-2008 to follow the different instructions given therein for maintenance of the Mandir, including the constitution of a body with 7 or 9 members with one member as its President or Chairman. The petitioners claimed that a Committee consisting of 7 members, including the wife of the 1st petitioner, was accordingly constituted and the said Committee was managing the temple. The petitioners claimed that a Committee consisting of 7 members, including the wife of the 1st petitioner, was accordingly constituted and the said Committee was managing the temple. While no material has been placed before the Court to show the factum of such management by filing any documents, the petitioners obviously filed an appeal before the Government against the orders of the Collector, which was dismissed, against which the petitioners filed W.P. No.21586 of 2007. A learned Judge of this Court by the order dated 18-12-2007 dismissed the writ petition without costs. In the Memo dated 01-10-2007, the Government, while dismissing the appeal of the 4th respondent, referred to the interim stay granted by it pending the appeal and after narrating the entire sequence of events, the only reason for dismissal of the appeal stated in the memo was that any alienation or transfer is not competent unless approved by the Council of Ministers. The Government, therefore, found no illegality in the order of the Collector. In the order in the writ petition, the learned Judge found that the Government did not refer to the legal basis for exercise of any quasi-judicial jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal and as there was no lawful alienation and transfer of property by the Gram Panchayat to the petitioner/4th respondent herein, the learned Judge refused to interfere. Assuming that the dismissal of W.P. No.21586 of 2007 has become final to the extent of recording the absence of any lawful alienation and transfer of property to the 4th respondent herein, the order itself refers to the procedure prescribed by G.O.Ms. No.215 and G.O.Ms. No.323 governing the procedure for alienation or transfer of property and if such a procedure were later followed, there is no reason as to why such a transfer cannot be made. The documents filed by the petitioners relating to the approval of the layout etc., do not throw any further light, as the layout being an approved layout and the extent ofAc.0.35 cents being set apart for public purpose and gifted to the Gram Panchayat are not factually in dispute, while the donors of the land gifted the extent of Ac.0.35 cents for public use. The procedure prescribed by G.O.Ms. The procedure prescribed by G.O.Ms. No.215 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development dated 25-06-2001 is about immovable property vesting in, but not belonging to Gram Panchayat being transferred or charged only subject to the conditions subject to which such property became vested in the Gram Panchayat. This Rule 3 imposing such a restriction subsequently underwent an amendment by G.O.Ms. No.323 dated 23-10-2001, by which sub-rule (2) was inserted in Rule 3 providing for the decision of the Cabinet in deserving cases to exercise the power of alienation or transfer of the property belonging to the Gram Panchayat, to private institutions/associations/individuals of great reputation and charitable in nature. The extent of Ac.0.35 cents was stated even by the writ petitioners to have been gifted by the land owners to the Gram Panchayat and since the gift, the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat and cannot be merely treated as the land vested in it and being subject to any conditions subject to which such vesting has taken place. If the land was the subject of absolute gift for the Gram Panchayat and belonged to the Gram Panchayat, then sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the said rules relating to acquisition and transfer of property by Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads under Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 squarely applies. The Cabinet is, thus, empowered to make such transfer or alienation, provided the requirements of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 are satisfied. 10. In the material papers filed by the 1st respondent, there is a representation from the local Legislator dated 02-01-2010 stating about the Gram Panchayat itself handing over Ac.0.15 cents common vacant land for construction of Sri Sai Gita Mandir, the construction of which was completed by 2001. The Legislator stated that the Mandir started functioning from 26-04-2001 with the devotees performing bhajans, poojas. The representation of the Legislator was obviously in pursuance of the earlier representation made to him by the members of the 4th respondent who also offered to pay the market value obtaining in 1997. The Legislator stated that the Mandir started functioning from 26-04-2001 with the devotees performing bhajans, poojas. The representation of the Legislator was obviously in pursuance of the earlier representation made to him by the members of the 4th respondent who also offered to pay the market value obtaining in 1997. The Government in the impugned Government Order obviously took into account the appeal made by the 4th respondent through the local Legislator, the people’s sentiments in the issue, etc., and took a conscious and considered decision to alienate the said extent of Ac.0.15 cents to the 4th respondent on payment of 1997 market value as a special case in tune with G.O.Ms. Nos.215 and 323. 11. Sri Panduranga Reddy, learned Government Pleader has made available the original file of the Panchayat Raj Department relating to the issue and a perusal of the entire file shows that there was conscious consideration of the issue at all the required levels before the matter was placed before the Council of Ministers. In the memorandum placed before the Council of Ministers, the entire background for the proposal has been narrated in detail, including the dismissal of the appeals against the Collector’s orders by the Government. Though there was no specific reference to the earlier writ petition and of course, it was also not specifically stated that the 4th respondent is a society of great reputation or that the alienation is for a charitable purpose, but the purpose for which the alienation was sought for is self-explanatory and cannot be considered to be not charitable, while the positive reputation of the 4th respondent can be considered to have not been rebutted by any proceedings before the consideration by the Cabinet, when the matter was under the consideration of the Gram Panchayat or the District Collector or the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj. While a person or institution is of great reputation or not maybe dependent on reflections of popular perceptions or individual assessment, the very writ-affidavit is proof positive that it was the 4th respondent who constructed Sri Sai Gita Mandir and no allegation was made in the writ-affidavit about any deficiencies or defects in the maintenance of Sri Sai Gita Mandir by the 4th respondent from 2001 till the intervention by the Collector in 2007 or even later. The proceedings of the Council of Ministers dated 20-09-2010 show that this item figured as item No.17 of the Agenda to the Cabinet approving the alienation on payment of market value prevailing in 1997. The Cabinet cannot be accused of being influenced by extraneous considerations in passing such a resolution and therefore, G.O.Ms. No.1500, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, cannot be considered to be in violation of G.O.Ms. No.215 and G.O.Ms. No.323. 12. Sri Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and others (1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 388), wherein the Apex Court was referring to doctrine of public trust and plethora of precedents to conclude that the executive acting under such doctrine cannot abdicate the natural resources and convert them into private ownership or for commercial use. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment and the ecosystems of our country were observed to be not permissible to be eroded for private, commercial or any other use unless the Courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public good and in public interest, to encroach upon the said resources. In the counter-affidavit of the 4th respondent, it made it clear that the 4th respondent does not claim any personal possession or title over the land in question. Religious devotion through performance of various forms of worship in the Mandir or temple cannot be considered to be either promoting private ownership or commercial use of the space and if absence of good faith, lack of public good and negation of public interest are not present in the Gram Panchayat or the Government permitting the continued existence of Sri Sai Gita Mandir at the site in question, any betrayal of the doctrine of public trust cannot be presumed. 13. Sri Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to Pt. Chet Ram Vashist v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (AIR 1995 Supreme Court 430(1), wherein it was observed that reserving any site for any street, open space, park, school, etc., in a lay-out plan is normally a public purpose and the owner will hold the land for the benefit of the society or the public in general. Either the owner or the transferor will be subject to such obligation in nature of trust. Either the owner or the transferor will be subject to such obligation in nature of trust. While the principles are unexceptionable, the area in question was transferred to the Corporation therein free of cost reserving two plots for a park and school, whereas here, there appeared to be no such specification of the use to which such site shall be put while gifting the extent of Ac.0.35 cents to the Gram Panchayat. While approving the layout, the Urban Development Authority in its proceedings, dated 30-04-1984 stated about prohibition for using any open space meant for parks, play grounds, community facilities, schools, etc., being utilized for any other use. The gift deed executed on 31-12-1981 also states in general about the gift being for use of the site for public benefit. When the exact use for which the gifted site shall be availed, was not specified while sanctioning the layout or when gifting the site, construction of a Mandir in an extent of Ac.0.15 cents out of Ac.0.35 cents, earmarked for public facility or public purpose, may not be open to be considered as violating the reservation of such site for any specified purpose. 14. Similar is the decision in P. Nagaraju and another v. Ananthapur Municipality and others ( 2004 (6) ALD 307 (DB), wherein the learned counsel Sri O. Manohar Reddy himself succeeded appearing for the petitioners therein, wherein it was laid down that the Municipality could not have converted a recreational area into a residential area or any place vested meant for public amenities into use for a different purpose. In that case, the area meant for central park was proposed to be converted into residential plots, which was frowned upon by the Division Bench. Such a fact situation does not obtain herein and in the absence of any violation of the purpose for which the land was gifted to the Gram Panchayat, the impugned Government Orders do not appear to suffer from any factual or legal vice. The writ petition has to, therefore, fail. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without costs.