Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 213 (AP)

Peetha Chandra Sekhar v. State Of AP

2021-03-30

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2021
ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed a group of villagers belonging to Kanaparthi Gram Panchayat and residents of villages in the Panchayat. 2. The petitioners are questioning the G.O.Ms.No.226, dated 13.01.2020 by which Kanaparthi Gram Panchayat has been separated from Dasarivaripalem. This Dasarivaripalem village was constituted as a separate Gram Panchayat. Now, Dasarivaripalem by itself is a Gram Panchayat and the other villages are included in Kanaparthi. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said action is incorrect and that the representations of the villagers of Pallepalem, Thopupalem, M.S.Pattapupalem and G.R.Pattapupalem were not considered. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners all the villagers of these few villages requested the authorities to form a new Gram Panchayat of Dasarivaripalem by including the five villages. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is the unanimous opinion of the members of these villagers was to be apart and parcel of the Dasarivaripalem Panchayat. The recommendations were also accordingly made by the statutory authorities but in an about turn, which is not supported by any reasons, the impugned G.O. was issued, by which Dasarivaripalem was created as a separate Panchayat and Kanaparthi Panchayat was created with all these villages as a constituency. The notice is questioned on various grounds. 4. This was opposed by the respondents 8 to 29, who impleaded themselves and argued that it was always the intention of the villagers of Dasarivaripalem that they wanted a new Gram Panchayat for Dasarivaripalem. It is stated that on 13.12.2019 a Gram Sabha was conducted which passed a resolution for formation of a new Gram Panchayat for Dasarivaripalem. The Government thereafter issued G.O.Ms.No.226, dated 13.01.2020 and the Dasarivaripalem Gram Panchayat began functioning from then onwards. They submit that thereafter the election process was also commenced, nominations were also filed but a stay granted by this Court in a group of matters has affected further progress of the election. 5. Sri Vinod K. Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Panchayat appeared and argued the matter for the Gram Panchayat. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appeared for the other set of respondents. He also supported the arguments of Sri Vinod K. Reddy. The submission of the learned standing counsel is that the procedure was duly followed and the Dasarivaripalem has been constituted as a separate Gram Panchayat and has been functioning as one since 13.01.2020. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appeared for the other set of respondents. He also supported the arguments of Sri Vinod K. Reddy. The submission of the learned standing counsel is that the procedure was duly followed and the Dasarivaripalem has been constituted as a separate Gram Panchayat and has been functioning as one since 13.01.2020. Therefore, he argues that the stay order does not apply to this Gram Panchayat. Apart from that he submits that it is the Gram Panchayat alone that can file a Writ Petition and the villagers do not have the locus to file this Writ. Relying upon Section 264 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act he argues that the villagers can only file a revision before the Government. As far as a Writ is concerned, it is his contention that only the Panchayat can file a Writ. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K.V.Vijay Kumar took this Court through the various resolutions and the recommendations filed as material papers along with this Writ Petition. It is his contention that on the basis of these documents that the will and the wish of the villagers which was clearly expressed was deliberately overlooked for extraneous reasons. He drew the attention of this Court to various representations and argued that the five villages wanted to join Dasarivaripalem Gram Panchayat and be an integral part of it. The recommendations made by the officers were also highlighted by the learned counsel. He submits that totally contrary to this the G.O. was issued creating Dasarivaripalem as a separate Panchayat and including the villages in Kanaparthi Panchayat. It is his forceful submission that the will of the people as expressed in the Gram Sabha should be considered. Relying upon the A.P. Gram Panchayat (Declaration/Denotification/Constitution of Villages) Rules, 2007 (G.O.Ms.No.542 of Panchayat Raj) learned counsel argues that when the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution it should be honoured by the Government. On the question of maintainability learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Kurapati Bangaraiah and Others v Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2015) 6 ALT 573 and argues that learned single Judge of this Court held that the petitioners in that case, who are the villagers can file a Writ before the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Rules, 2007 were totally overlooked. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Rules, 2007 were totally overlooked. The will of the people expressed in various representations was also overlooked. Hence, he submits that it is a fit case in which this Court should interfere and allow the Writ Petition. 7. Learned senior counsel Smt. Sesharajyam appears for the implead respondents, who have filed a vacate stay petition. 8. Relying upon the vacate stay petition filed, learned senior counsel argues that new Panchayat of Dasarivaripalem has been functioning since 13.01.2020. The villagers conducted a Grama Sabha and passed a resolution for formation of a new Gram Panchayat for Dasarivaripalem only. It is also mentioned that the petitioners cannot force themselves on to the other residents and insist that their village should also be included as a part of the Dasarivaripalem Gram Panchayat. The people of Dasarivaripalem, as per the learned senior counsel, passed a resolution which is forwarded to the State and ultimately the new Gram Panchayat came into existence. According to learned senior counsel the Gram Panchayat was already formed by the date of interim order granted. According to the learned senior counsel the election process was also commenced and unless the order is vacated the villagers of Dasarivaripalem Gram Panchayat will suffer serious loss. It is also clearly averred that none of the boundaries or the status of other villagers included in this residuary KanaparthiGram Panchayat are changed in any manner. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel argues that the will of the people of Dasarivaripalem should be allowed to prevail and they should be allowed to be separated from the others. COURT: 9. This court after hearing all the learned counsels and considering the submissions made noticesthat the impugned G.O. was issued creating two Gram Panchayats in place of existing Kanaparthi Gram Panchayat. The new Gram Panchayat is Dasarivaripalem Gram Panchayat, the other Gram Panchayat is Kanaparthi residuary Gram Panchayat. In the Writ Petition that is filed it is urged that Section 2 (17), 2 (25), 3 (2)(a)(c)(d)&(f) and Section 268 of the Act is not followed. The representations made by the villagers are also not supposedly followed. This is the sum and substance of the submission. In the Writ Petition that is filed it is urged that Section 2 (17), 2 (25), 3 (2)(a)(c)(d)&(f) and Section 268 of the Act is not followed. The representations made by the villagers are also not supposedly followed. This is the sum and substance of the submission. However, this Court on examination of the provisions of law referred upon notices that Section 2 (17) defines a Gram Panchayat, Section 2 (25) talks of a notification, Section 3(2)(a)(c)(d)&(f) deal with the power of the Government to form a new village, increase its area, decrease its area, alter its boundaries etc. Section 268 of the Act deals with the power of the Government to make rules. A reading of the Writ Petition does not show how and in what manner these particular rules, which are highlighted, have actually been valid. 10. What is, however, also highlighted in the Writ Petition is the representations and the resolutions that were passed, were totally ignored while the new Gram Panchayat was formed. While it is a fact that representations cannot be the sole basis for the creation of a new Gram Panchayat or the bifurcation of Gram Panchayat, the fact remains that the villagers of these hamlets viz., Dasarivaripalem, Pallepalem, Thopupalem, M.S.Pattapupalem, G.R.Pattapupalem etc., have been giving representations and passing resolutions. There is also a Gram Sabha resolution of the Kanaparthi Gram Panchayat on 02.01.2019 wherein it is mentioned that even Dasarivaripalem villagers want to be a part of new Gram Panchayat. This is followed by the resolution of 19.01.2019, wherein it is reiterated that he villagers Dasarivaripalem, Pallepalem, Thopupalem, M.S.Pattapupalem and G.R.Pattapupalem, Masanamvaripalem want to join Dasarivaripalem as a separate Gram Panchayat. On 11.02.2019 the Extension Officer recommended this case to the District Panchayat Officer. This was followed by a letterfrom the District Panchayat Officer to the Director, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, dated 27.12.2019. This proposal is to the following effect – if bifurcation is affected: the residuary villages are (1) Kanaparthi, (2) Reddypalem,(3) Ch.Pattapupalem, (4) Kakkulavaripalem and (5) Yanadivaripalem. The new Panchayat would be consisting of (1) Dasarivaripalem, (2) Topupalem, (3) M.S.Pattapupalem, (4) G.R.Pattapupalem and (5) Pallepalem. Ultimately, when the G.O. was however passed on 13.01.2020 only Dasarivaripalem was separated from the other 9 villages. The proposal sent by the District Panchayat Officer was after a study of the issue. The new Panchayat would be consisting of (1) Dasarivaripalem, (2) Topupalem, (3) M.S.Pattapupalem, (4) G.R.Pattapupalem and (5) Pallepalem. Ultimately, when the G.O. was however passed on 13.01.2020 only Dasarivaripalem was separated from the other 9 villages. The proposal sent by the District Panchayat Officer was after a study of the issue. He recommended that the existing Panchayat should have five villages or hamlets and the residuary should have five villages or hamlets but in the impugned G.O. that has been passed 9 villages/hamlets have been included as the residuary Panchayat of Kanaparthi and only Dasarivaripalem is constituted as a separate Gram Panchayat. No reasons are forthcoming for this clear change. When a decision is taken by the State contrary to the recommendations of the men in the site, the same should be supported by clear; intelligible reasons. 11. The 2007 Rules for declaration of villages clearly mentions that the resolution passed by a Gram Panchayat should normally be accepted, unless the Government is of the opinion that such a resolution is vitiated by irregularity, impropriety, illegality (Rule 8). Where it becomes necessary to take action to exclude any village in a local area or to include any village locally or union of two or more villages as per Rule 9 an opportunity of showing cause should be given to the Gram Panchayat. Where a special officer has been appointed in place of Gram Panchayat,the special officer is also directed to consult members of the Gram Sabha in a special meeting. Therefore, it is clear that it is the will of the people as expressed through the Gram Panchayat or the Gram Sabha that should prevail in the ultimateanalysis. In the case on hand the petitioners have come to the Court with a specific case that over a period of time resolutions were passed for forming a new Gram Panchayat with Dasarivaripalem as it’s head. In the impugned order Dasarivaripalemis shown as a separate singular Gram Panchayat. Even in the impugned G.O. does not refer to any Gram Sabha being conducted by the villagers of Dasarivaripalem. In the impugned order Dasarivaripalemis shown as a separate singular Gram Panchayat. Even in the impugned G.O. does not refer to any Gram Sabha being conducted by the villagers of Dasarivaripalem. The counter affidavit refers to a Gram Sabhaconducted on 13.12.2019, but the same is not reflected in the impugned G.O. The date of a resolution passed by the Kanaprthi Gram Panchayat ismentioned in the impugned G.O. In the rejoinder filed it is also pointed out thatsome of the new respondents have also signed in the representations demanding the inclusion of the four villages with Dasarivaripalem. This is a fact which the Court finds that is not satisfactorily explained by the respondent. In paragraph 4 of the rejoinder these issues are specifically pointed out. The petitionershave also relied upon the Gram Sabha resolutions of 02.01.2019 conducted by the villagers of Kanaparthi. The same was also forwarded by the Extension officer to the District Panchayat Officer and a report was also submitted to the Higherups. In light of these conflicting stands and discrepancies, this Court is of the opinion that the State should have taken greater care and caution before issuing the impugned notification. The villagers of Kanaparhi are on record stating that the new Gram Panchayat of Dasarivaripalem should be formed with four other villages. No reason is forthcoming from the State for the creation of the single village Gram Panchayat (Dasarivaripalem). As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners under Rule 9, if a local area is to be changed by including any village or to unit two or more villages and also to exclude any village, the Gram Panchayat should be given an option for expressing its opinion. If the Gram Panchayat is not there the Gram Sabha should be consulted. The respondents also did not file a copy of their resolution, which is dated 13.12.2019, said to have been passed. 12. In view of the clear violations of the statutory provisions and rules, this Court has to hold that the petitioners have made out a case for interference. The explanation of the State and the stand of the unofficial respondents is not at all satisfactory. The 2007 Rules are not followed in the opinion of this Court. 13. 12. In view of the clear violations of the statutory provisions and rules, this Court has to hold that the petitioners have made out a case for interference. The explanation of the State and the stand of the unofficial respondents is not at all satisfactory. The 2007 Rules are not followed in the opinion of this Court. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned G.O., dated 13.01.2020, is set aside as being passed against to the law and the rules of natural justice. 14. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.