ORDER : ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J. 1. This Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) is filed stating that Government sanctioned house-sites to the Scheduled Caste Hindu Madiga community in the year 1970 in Survey No.113/1 in an extent of Ac.6.52 cents in lagadapadu village, Pedakurapadu Mandal. In the above survey number, for community purpose, Government land was excluded for construction of Telugu Baptist Church and Seventh Day Church and, accordingly, both Churches were constructed. There was one well in the survey number for use of the colony people, but later on, people used the water supplied by the Panchayat. The respondents 7 to 11 are making construction of a Church in the Government land in between Plot Nos.87 and 88 to an extent of about Ac.0.05 cents, without any permission, though the community had decided to use the land for construction of a community hall and, accordingly, the petitioner had made a representation dated 28.06.2017 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur and on such representation, respondent No.3 had referred the matter to the Tahsildar, Pedakurapadu Mandal, who issued notice and fixed a board stating that the land is a Government land and whoever encroaches upon the land, shall be punished. On such board being put up, no further construction had taken place. But, taking advantage of change of Government, respondents 7 to 11 forced the Tahsildar to remove the board and were going ahead with illegal construction in the Government land. It is stated that as two Churches are already existing, there was no necessity for constructing another Church. 2. This Court, by order dated 05.11.2019, had observed that if any construction is being raised by respondents 7 to 11, the same shall be subject to final outcome of the Writ Petition. 3. Respondent No.2, i.e. the District Collector, has filed counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that in the year 1971, an extent of Ac.6.52 cents in Sy.No.113/1 of Lagadapadu village, Pedakurapadu Mandal, was acquired by the Social Welfare Department. Lay-out was prepared with 93 plots at the rate of Ac.0.05 cents per plot, leaving an extent of Ac.0.80 cents and Ac.0.20 cents at separate locations, earmarking for communal sites. House-site pattas were distributed to 82 beneficiaries of Scheduled Caste (S.C.) community of the same village and Plot Nos.83 to 93 were allotted to others. Lay-out was prepared with 93 plots at the rate of Ac.0.05 cents per plot, leaving an extent of Ac.0.80 cents and Ac.0.20 cents at separate locations, earmarking for communal sites. House-site pattas were distributed to 82 beneficiaries of Scheduled Caste (S.C.) community of the same village and Plot Nos.83 to 93 were allotted to others. Later, one of the communal sites with Ac.0.20 cents was also distributed as house-sites to another seven people of the same village. As per the lay-out, the land located between Southern side of Plot No.87 is topographically demarcated as ‘Well’ and the same was not assigned with any plot number. However, there is no well on ground. On the complaint received from the petitioner, the Tahsildar erected sign board on the land indicating that the land belongs to Government and any type of construction in the location is barred. It is stated that there are two rival groups in S.C. (Madiga) community and majority community people are planning to construct a communal hall and the construction upto basement level was completed earlier. They requested the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, to take necessary action for removal of the sign board erected by the Tahsildar, which is opposed by the other group in the same community. The other group requested to restore the existing well for their community needs. It is stated that as the subject land was left as communal site and it was handed over by the Tahsildar to the Gram Panchayat for utilizing the same for future communal needs of the S.C. community, the Gram Panchayat has to utilize or permit to utilize the said land through its resolution. 4. Respondent No.1, i.e. Secretary to Government, Revenue (Land, Endowments & DM) Department, respondent No.3, i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, and respondent No.4, i.e. the Tahsildar, Pedakurapadu Mandal, also filed counter-affidavits similar to that of respondent No.2. 5. There is one more affidavit styled as a counter-affidavit by respondent No.4. The said affidavit is filed by one Mr. Ch. Srinivasa Rao, who is the Mandal Revenue Inspector. The Mandal Revenue Inspector is not a party to the proceedings and the Tahsildar, Pedakurapadu Mandal, who is respondent No.4, had filed his counter affidavit. 5. There is one more affidavit styled as a counter-affidavit by respondent No.4. The said affidavit is filed by one Mr. Ch. Srinivasa Rao, who is the Mandal Revenue Inspector. The Mandal Revenue Inspector is not a party to the proceedings and the Tahsildar, Pedakurapadu Mandal, who is respondent No.4, had filed his counter affidavit. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, it is stated that majority community people are planning to construct a Chruch for their worship in the location and the construction upto basement level was completed earlier. 6. In the counter-affidavit of respondent No.6, i.e. Panchayat Secretary, Lagadapadu Gram Panchayat, it is stated that there is a lay-out with 93 plots in an extent of Ac.6.52 cents in Survey No.113/1 of Lagadapadu village, Pedakurapadu Mandal, laid by the Government for providing house sites to the houseless poor S.C. people in the year 1973. In the said lay-out, one plot to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents was left without assigning to anybody and without number for the reason that there was a well which was in dilapidated condition and the same was under the control of respondent No.4. There was an attempt by some encroachers to make illegal structures in the said location, which was prevented by respondent No.4. Subsequently, the colony people made a request to the Gram Panchayat to take steps to allot the site for the community purpose and on 05.07.2019, the Gram Panchayat requested respondent No.4 for furnishing the details about the site, since colony people are requesting to allot the site for construction of Church-cum-Community hall with their own funds. Subsequent thereto, respondent No.4 handed over the above site to the Gram Panchayat vide proceedings dated 16.08.2019. On 17.08.2019, colony people submitted a representation to give permission to construct community hall with their own funds and considering their request, the Gram Panchayat passed resolution on 21.08.2019 accepting their request to construct community hall with their contribution and also took decision to convey the recommendation to the Government for allotting funds. It was subsequently learnt that colony people were making construction of community hall building with their own contributions and when he came to know about that, he stopped the same since there were no further approvals for construction and, accordingly, no construction activity in the subject site is taking place. 7. It was subsequently learnt that colony people were making construction of community hall building with their own contributions and when he came to know about that, he stopped the same since there were no further approvals for construction and, accordingly, no construction activity in the subject site is taking place. 7. Respondent No.8 in his counter-affidavit, has stated that in between Plot Nos.87 and 88, vacant site was left without giving any plot number and without allotting the same to anyone and the same was being used for community purpose. Initially a shed was erected and the people of the colony used the same for communal purposes. No well was in existence at any time and a hand-pump was in existence. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to opposite group and during the year 2017, since the existing shed was in a dilapidated condition, the same was renovated with RCC slab. When the construction was completed up to slab level, petitioner made representation to the officials to stop construction activity and on such representation, construction activity was stopped by the respondents and, as such, community hall building at present is in a semi-finished condition and in such half-finished building, community people are holding meetings. When the site was converted as communal site and handed over to the Gram Panchayat, the Gram Panchayat, after considering their request, had passed resolution to grant permission to construct community hall with their own funds and, accordingly, they have collected money from the residents of the colony to complete the building. It is stated that the community hall existing in the subject land belongs to all the residents for community purpose and not for any personal use. It is stated that the Writ Petition is filed to stop the officials in sanctioning required permissions to complete the construction of the community hall. 8. In the composite reply-affidavit filed to all the counter-affidavits, it is stated that the allegations made by respondent No.8 that there was shed and that the said shed was used for communal purpose, are false. It is also stated that S.C. colony residents belong to Madiga community and most of them are Christians following Baptist Church, Seventh Day Church and LFF Church and there is no necessity for another Church in the colony, but there is every need for protecting drinking water sources in the colony. 9. It is also stated that S.C. colony residents belong to Madiga community and most of them are Christians following Baptist Church, Seventh Day Church and LFF Church and there is no necessity for another Church in the colony, but there is every need for protecting drinking water sources in the colony. 9. In the order dated 24.02.2021, amongst others, it is recorded as follows: “It is to be noted that the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents have given different versions regarding the activity that was going on the subject land. The averments in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Pedakurapadu Mandal, would go to show that there are two rival groups of S.C. community in the village and majority of community people are planning to construct a church in the land in question and that the construction has been raised up to basement level. However, respondent Nos.1 to 3, in their counter-affidavits, have taken a different stand to the effect that major group of same community people are planning to construct a communal hall in the same place and construction upto basement level is completed. Perusal of the counter-affidavits also shows that there is a dispute with regard to the identity of the land and existence of a well therein. Having regard to the discrepancies as noted above, we direct the Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Sattenapalli, to inspect the land in question, by taking the assistance of the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, if necessary, and submit a status report to this Court within a period of two weeks from today. The expenses incurred towards the inspection are to be collected from the concerned Legal Services Authority. The report shall be sent to the Registrar (Judicial) and on receipt thereof, the same shall be placed before the Court on the next date fixed. The Registry shall forthwith communicate a copy of this order to the Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Sattenapalli. List this case on 17.03.2021.” 10. However, it transpires now that averments in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4-Tahsildar, as noted in the said order, are that of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, who styled himself as respondent No.4. 11. Pursuant to the above order dated 24.02.2021, the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Sattenapalli, submitted report dated 03.03.2021. List this case on 17.03.2021.” 10. However, it transpires now that averments in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4-Tahsildar, as noted in the said order, are that of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, who styled himself as respondent No.4. 11. Pursuant to the above order dated 24.02.2021, the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Sattenapalli, submitted report dated 03.03.2021. When the said Report was considered on 17.03.2021, it was noticed that though in the said Report, reference to a half-constructed building is made, report is conspicuously silent as to at whose instance building was constructed and for what purpose and accordingly, the Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Sattenapalli, was directed to submit another Report, indicating by whom, and for what purpose, the building was constructed. 12. Accordingly, another Report dated 23.03.2021 is submitted. The relevant portions of the Report dated 03.03.2021 and the Report dated 23.03.2021, are extracted below: Report dated 03.03.2021 “Status Report submitted by the Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Sattenapalli in W.P. (PIL) No.124/2019 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh Pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble High Court dt.24-2-2021 in W.P.(PIL) No.124/2019 and I.A.1/2019 communicated by the Hon’ble Member Secretary, A.P.State Legal Services Authority through e-mail on 26-2-2021, I required the Revenue Authorities and parties to be present at the site in question on 28-2-2-21 at 10:30 am, for the purpose of identification and demarcation of the property and to note down the physical features available there. I issued notices to them for this purpose. I also required the Revenue Authorities, to bring necessary records for demarcation of the land in question. 02. On 28-2-2021, I proceeded to Plot Nos.87 and 88 of S.C.Madiga Colony, Lagadapadu Gram Panchayat and reached there by 10:15 AM and commenced the proceedings from 10.30 AM. The writ petitioner and respondents 3 to 11 were present there. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, representing the Government of Andhra Pradesh, was present. The Village Sarpanch, Mr. V. Nageswara Rao and some other villagers also gathered there. 03. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, stated that in Ac.6.52 cents of land in S.No.113, the Government laid 93 plots and allotted to different persons and the respective allottees constructed houses in their plots. He gave attested copy of the layout plan of 93 plots. The Village Sarpanch, Mr. V. Nageswara Rao and some other villagers also gathered there. 03. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, stated that in Ac.6.52 cents of land in S.No.113, the Government laid 93 plots and allotted to different persons and the respective allottees constructed houses in their plots. He gave attested copy of the layout plan of 93 plots. The writ petitioner, Revenue Authorities and respondents 7 to 11 also stated that the land in question is the unnumbered plot between plot Nos.87 and 88 of the said layout. 04. At my instance, the Deputy Surveyor, Pedakurapadu, surveyed and demarcated the disputed land situated between plot Nos.87 and 88 of Sy.No.113, Lagadapadu. It is an extent of Ac.0.05 cents unnumbered plot in the layout between the Plot Nos.87 and 88 in S.No.113, Lagadapadu within the following boundaries:- East : Pathway/road West : Plot No.67 North : Plot No.87 South : Plot No.88 A structure is found in the said Ac.0.05 cents of plot. Surveyor prepared a panchanama incorporating all these facts and obtained the signatures of the writ petitioner and the respondents 3 to 11 and also the village elders, acknowledging the said facts. 05. In the disputed site, I found a semi-finished structure of building covering the entire area of Ac.0.05 cents of the disputed site. There is one big hall covered by walls on all four sides. There is a portico on the front side of the building. On either side of the portico, there are steps to go to the top of the building. The building is facing East, i.e., the road side. The building is not painted. The roof of the building is covered by cement slab with sunshades. Some bricks are stored on the top of the building. The floor work in the hall is not done, but there are tiles kept in the hall for fixing to the floor. Apart from the entrance on the eastern side, there is a door to the northern side wall of the hall. There are four windows to the northern wall and four windows to southern side wall. There are two windows on either side of the entrance on East. The work of false-ceiling of the hall and electrical work appear to be in progress. One fan is fixed to the roof in the middle of the hall. There are four windows to the northern wall and four windows to southern side wall. There are two windows on either side of the entrance on East. The work of false-ceiling of the hall and electrical work appear to be in progress. One fan is fixed to the roof in the middle of the hall. I did not find any electricity service connection to the building. Photographs of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar and Shri Babu Jagjeevan Ram are fixed to the wall of the hall on the western side. I took photographs of the building and they are appended to the report. 06. The layout plan given by Revenue Authorities shows a well in the disputed area. However, on ground, I did not find such well and instead there is a structure. A hand bore pump is found installed on the northeast corner, outside the building. Proceedings are concluded by 11:15 am. Sd/-(S.Nageswara Rao) Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chairman Mandal Legal Services Committee, Sattenapalli Report dated 23.03.2021 “Report submitted by the Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Sattenapalli in W.P. (PIL) No.124/2019 and I.A.1/2019 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the Order dt.17-3-2021 In deference to the Order dt.17-3-2021 of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (PIL) No.124/2019, I required and secured the presence of the petitioner as well as respondents 4 to 11 by way of notice. XXXXX XXXXX 03. Only inference that could be drawn from the above documents is that originally, the idea of construction of Church-cum-community hall was mooted by one group of villagers as is reflected in the resolution No.3 of the resolution dt.21-8-2019. But, subsequently, the representation to the authorities had shown proposal for construction of a community hall and the subsequent papers do not contain the word “Church”. The panchayat approved the construction of a community hall only. 04. When I proposed to conduct enquiry on 20-3-2021 at 9:00 am., along with the authorities and panchayat officials, the villagers were also present and many people volunteered to give statements. All the people have spoken about the construction work being carried out by the respondents 8 to 11. For that matter, respondents 8 to 11 themselves admitted that fact. 05. At that time, one Sri Vemavarapu Rajaram, produced five photographs which were taken at the time of a programme conducted in the said structure. All the people have spoken about the construction work being carried out by the respondents 8 to 11. For that matter, respondents 8 to 11 themselves admitted that fact. 05. At that time, one Sri Vemavarapu Rajaram, produced five photographs which were taken at the time of a programme conducted in the said structure. These photographs reveal that such a programme was conducted by Telugu Baptist Church, Lagadapadu wherein a group of people along with some of the respondents were seen, showing that the building was used for conducting the programme of Telugu Baptist Church. One Sri Vemavarapu Murahari Rao explained that in the months of June and July, 2019, there were rains causing leakage in the roof of Church in the village and, therefore, when a person died, prayers were conducted in the new structure. Respondents 8 to 11 denied using the structure as a Church stating that the utility of the structure is only for community hall. It is only because of the above religious programme, people started apprehending that the structure would be used as Church. 06. It seems that the religious function evidenced by the photographs, was conducted in the structure without the consent of all the persons of the colony and there is apprehension in the minds of a group of persons that the building would be used as a Church. According to them, since the building was constructed only by a group of persons, they alone would control the entry into the building and its affairs, thereby they may deny the communal character of the building for others who do not adhere the religious sentiments of respondents 8 to 11. The others expressed their helpless condition to utilize the building for community purpose. They also questioned the utilization of the building for community purpose, since no modalities have been set forth for such use. It is clear that as on date, there is no clear-cut protocol as to who will control the utilization of the building or the community purposes for which it will be used, etc. Further, it appears from the submissions of the persons present there, that funds are collected only from some persons. It is clear that as on date, there is no clear-cut protocol as to who will control the utilization of the building or the community purposes for which it will be used, etc. Further, it appears from the submissions of the persons present there, that funds are collected only from some persons. Above all, they questioned the behavior of respondents 8 to 11 in proceeding with the construction by raising funds only from a group of people, that too, without any permission from the authorities, despite the pendency of the writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. 07. I therefore, humbly submit that it remains an admitted fact that respondents 8 to 11 are responsible for the construction of the building in question, and the purpose stated by them as on the date is for community hall. However, the modalities concerning the entry into the same and purposes for which it would be put to use, are yet to be clarified. Submitted. Sd/-(S.Nageswara Rao) Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chairman Mandal Legal Services Committee, Sattenapalli” 13. From a perusal of the Writ Petition and the reply-affidavit filed by the petitioner, it would appear that the petitioner himself had taken two contradictory stands. While in the petition, in essence, it was said that people are using the water supplied by the Panchayat and that the community had decided to use the land for construction of the community hall, in the reply-affidavit, emphasis was placed for protecting drinking water source in the colony and it is highlighted therein that there is no necessity to construct another Church in the colony. The Report dated 03.03.2021 submitted by the Chairman, Mandal Legal Services committee, Sattenapalli, would go to show that though in the lay-out plan given by Revenue Authorities, a well was shown at the disputed area, on ground, he did not find such well and instead, found a building and a hand bore pump installed on the north-east corner, outside the building. The building in question is a semi-finished structure, covering the entire area of Ac.0.05 cents of the disputed site. 14. The building in question is a semi-finished structure, covering the entire area of Ac.0.05 cents of the disputed site. 14. From the second Report, i.e. the Report dated 23.03.2021 of the Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Sattenapalli, it is seen that though the idea of construction of Church-cum-community hall was mooted by one group of villagers as reflected in the resolution No.3 of the resolution dt.21-8-2019, subsequently, the Panchayat approved the construction of a community hall only. It is noted that respondent Nos.8 to 11 denied using the structure as a Church stating that the utility of the structure is only for community hall. It is only because of the prayer meeting conducted in the building on the death of a person, people started apprehending that the structure would be used as Church. It is also stated in the Report that apprehension is expressed by a group of persons that as a particular group has started construction of the building, the same may erode communal character of the building. It is also noted therein that there is no clear-cut protocol as to who will control the utilization of the building or the community purposes for which it will be used. 15. The counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.6, i.e. Panchayat Secretary, Lagadapadu Gram Panchayat, Pedakurapadu Mandal, indicates that there is no approval for construction of the building and, as such, construction of the building in the subject site was halted. 16. From the materials on record, it would appear that some people started constructing a community hall by arranging their own funds, in the disputed site. It would also appear that no permission is accorded by the Panchayat for the purpose of construction of the said building. It is evident that there is no well in the disputed site and it is not known how and when the well ceased to exist on ground. It would also appear from the averments made in the Writ Petition itself that people are having the facility of water supply from the Gram Panchayat. 17. It is evident that there is no well in the disputed site and it is not known how and when the well ceased to exist on ground. It would also appear from the averments made in the Writ Petition itself that people are having the facility of water supply from the Gram Panchayat. 17. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the Panchayat Secretary, Lagadapadu Gram Panchayat, Pedakurapadu Mandal, to consider whether permission can now be granted for construction of the community hall, which is half-constructed and in the event of granting of such permission, in what manner and how the funds will be collected and by whom, ensuring that there is a wide public participation. The control of the community hall, if permitted to be constructed, shall be with the Gram Panchayat, which will regulate use of the community hall for the benefit of the people of the locality. Till appropriate decisions are taken by the Gram Panchayat as indicated above, there shall be no further construction of the building in question. 18. With the above directions and observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.