Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 187 (AP)

Kameswaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2019-08-13

G.SHYAM PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the six respondent in trying to evict the petitioner from her agricultural lands situated in Survey No. 90 to an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents Katta No. 318, Fasli 1425 situated at Vardhanenipalem village, Jarugumalli Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the 6th respondent is trying to evict the petitioner from her agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 1.00 which belongs to her husband, without following due process of law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without issuing any notice, the respondents are pressuring the petitioners to vacate the said land. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the year 2016, a meeting has been conducted in the Grampanchayat office by the 6th respondent and a resolution was passed with regard to erection of community water plant at her village, basing on the resolution. The 3rd respondent-Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Office, Prakasam District vide proceedings in Rc. No. P3/2835/2016, dated 18.05.2016 sanctioned 14% funds for erection "of the water plant. The 6th respondent-Gram Panchayat and the members have approved for construction of the water tank and passed a resolution to that effect. 5. Initially, the 6th respondent along with other respondents have agreed for construction of the water plant and accordingly, the same was constructed in the land of the petitioner's husband and she has been eking out her livelihood after the death of her husband by running the water plant. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 6th respondent and his officials have come to her land and orally informed her to vacate the said land and therefore, she approached this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Seshadri Learned Standing Counsel appearing for 6th respondent. 8. Perused the material on record. 9. The petitioner claims that the gram panchayat has passed a resolution in the general body meeting held on 21.5.2016 sanctioning 14% of funds for construction of community water treatment plant basing on the proceedings of the 3rd respondent. All the members have approve the resolution unanimously. 8. Perused the material on record. 9. The petitioner claims that the gram panchayat has passed a resolution in the general body meeting held on 21.5.2016 sanctioning 14% of funds for construction of community water treatment plant basing on the proceedings of the 3rd respondent. All the members have approve the resolution unanimously. The said water plant appears to have been constructed in the land of the petitioner. Whereas, the contention of the 6th respondent is that said construction of the water plant was made in Sy. No. 87, which is a grama kantam site. The petitioner has no right over the grama kantam land and therefore, the respondents are taking steps for eviction of the petitioner from the grama kantam site where the water plant was constructed for public purpose. 10. Admittedly, there is a dispute with regard to the existence of the water plant as to where it was situated whether in Sy. No. 90 or in Sy. No. 87 and also there is a dispute with regard to ownership of the said land if the panchayat has got any right over the schedule property, where the water plant was constructed, they may proceed in accordance with law for eviction of the petitioner, if the petitioner is in illegal possession. The petitioner is at liberty of (sic. to) avail appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum to agitate his rights. 11. In view of the fore going reasons, this court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case. However, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioner's community water plant said to be lying in her agricultural land situated in Sy. No. 90 until the dispute the resolved with regard to existence of the plant in the said survey number or in survey No. 87. These are the matters which cannot be decided in a writ jurisdiction. Since there is a dispute with regard to existence of water plant, the parties have to resolve their dispute by approaching the appropriate forum. 12. If the respondents are inclined to evict the petitioner from the schedule property, they have to follow the due process of law for eviction. 13. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the parties. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.