Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 496 (AP)

P. v. R. Varma VS State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-08-04

G.SHYAM PRASAD

body2020
JUDGMENT G. Shyam Prasad, J. - This is a writ of Mandamus filed by the petitioners declaring the action of the respondents 4 and 5 in making attempts to construct Grama Sacivalayam in petitioners' land to an extent of Ac 0.40 cents in Sy No.354 of Kumili Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District, pending the appeal and stay petition dated 29.06.2020 before the 2nd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Brief facts of the case are that originally the petitioner's grandfather Poosapati Adinarayana Raju has been in possession and enjoyment of Gramakantham land to an extent of Ac 0.40 cents in Sy No.354 of Kumili Village. He used to run rice mill with diesel oil machine in those days. Subsequently, about 20 years back, he died, leaving behind his sons, namely, (1) Varaha Narasimha Raju, (2) Ramakrishna Raju, (3) Satyanarayaa Gajapathi Raju and (4) Ramachandra Raju, and later all of them have died. 1st petitioner is the son of Varaha Narasimha Raju, 2nd petitioner is the son of Ramakrishna Raju, 3rd petitioner is the son of Venkata Satyanaraya Gajapathi Raju and 4th petitioner is the son of Ramachandra Raju. They are all living at Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam respectively due to their avocation and employment. The rice mill was in dilapidated condition. The petitioners have levelled the site for construction of houses. In the month of May 2020, taking advantage of the absence of petitioners, the political party leaders tried to interfere with the petitioners' possession and enjoyment by making constructions therein. The petitioners having come to know about it made representations to the 4th and 5th respondents requesting them not to dispossess the petitioners. The acknowledgements of the notices sent to the respondents dated 25.05.2020 are filed. The publication about the incident made in "Andhra Jyothi" Newspaper dated 23.05.2020 are also filed. The 4th and 5th respondents having received the notices come to the land of the petitioners and demolished the compound wall highhandedly and levelled the land and dug foundations. 3. It is also the case of the petitioners that as per Section 58 of A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, the Gramakantham land vests with Gram Panchayat and the revenue authorities have no authority over the said land. 3. It is also the case of the petitioners that as per Section 58 of A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, the Gramakantham land vests with Gram Panchayat and the revenue authorities have no authority over the said land. It is also the case of the petitioners that the respondents have got Grama Sachivalayam in the village and it is functioning and there was no need for the respondents to construct a new building for Grama Sachivalayam. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioners have preferred W.P.No.9354 of 2020 before this Court and the same was disposed of directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioners and till such time ordered to maintain status quo in respect of the subject land vide order dated 29.5.2020. The 4th respondent having received Court order on 01.06.2020 has passed an order immediately on 02.06.2020 rejecting the petitioners' representations stating that no documentary evidence was filed. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were not given a reasonable opportunity to put forth their case for consideration. The petitioners have preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and also filed a stay petition against the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent. The 2nd respondent received the appeal on 30.06.2020 and has not passed any orders though it was alleged that respondents are trying to build Grama Sachivalayam in the petitioners' land situated in Ac.0.40 cents in Sy No.354-1 of Kumili Village. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents 1 to 3. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners have filed an appeal against the orders passed by the Revenue authorities along with application for grant of stay. The application for grant of say has not been disposed of by the concerned authority due to Covid pandemic. The 2nd respondent office is busy with administration work and the petitioners have not received any notice in the appeal so far. 7. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have already preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. They have also filed an application for grant of stay. The petitioners themselves have stated that due to pandemic situation the respondents have not responded in the appeal filed by them and so they have not received any notice in respect of their appeal. 8. They have also filed an application for grant of stay. The petitioners themselves have stated that due to pandemic situation the respondents have not responded in the appeal filed by them and so they have not received any notice in respect of their appeal. 8. On consideration of submissions made by both the counsel, since the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and also filed an application for grant of stay and the application for grant of stay is pending before the 2nd respondent, the petitioners have approached this Court for grant of interim relief. 9. This Court is of the considered view that when the petitioners have approached the appellate Court and filed a petition for grant of stay, it is for the appellate Court to consider the material on record for grant of stay. This Court cannot step into the shoes of the appellate Court and pass order in this matter. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of the interim application of stay filed by the petitioners within one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, the respondents shall not take any further steps in the matter. 10. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed.