Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 733 (AP)

Thatisetti Ramulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-11-02

BATTU DEVANAND

body2021
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the 1st respondent, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4 and Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Gram Panchayat. Perused the material available on record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the resident of Tallapuram Village, Ungutur Mandal, West Godavari District. He is aged about 70 years. He is having one cattle and eking out his family livelihood by selling milk only. There is no other source of income to the petitioner family. The petitioner family constructed a thatched house in road side Panchayat Land for Residential purpose in Tallapuram Village, Ungutur Mandal. One year back, the said shed is totally damaged and not in a condition to reside there. As such, the petitioner constructed ACC roof shed with cement polls in the place of thatched house. This temporary structure is not causing any inconvenience to the public. 3. Learned counsel would submit that the 3rd respondent at the instance of local ruling party leaders trying to remove the petitioner’s shed alleging that in the recent Panchayat election, petitioner did not support the ruling party supported candidate as Village Sarpanch. On 13.09.2021, petitioner made representation before the 2nd respondent in Spandana programme and requested not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the residential shed erected by the petitioner. On 18.09.2021, the Sarpanch and ward members of the 3rd respondent Gram Panchayat considering the poor condition of the petitioner sent a letter to the 4th respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner residential shed and to give instructions to the Panchayat Secretary. On 26.10.2021, the 3rd respondent along with staff once again came there and trying to evict the petitioner. Under the circumstances the petitioner is left with no option, approached this Court for filing this Writ Petition. 4. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief sought in this Writ Petition. The petitioner himself admitted that he encroached the Gram Panchayat road margin and erected ACC roof shed with cement polls. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief sought in this Writ Petition. The petitioner himself admitted that he encroached the Gram Panchayat road margin and erected ACC roof shed with cement polls. Though the petitioner is contended that the structure will not cause any inconvenience to the public, in the opinion of this Court, the structure, which was erected on the road margin definitely cause inconvenience to the public. This type of encroachments on the road margin cannot be encouraged by this Court by passing orders sympathetically in favour of such persons like the petitioner. If the petitioner is really a poor person and he comes under the below poverty line, he is entitled to get welfare schemes introduced by the State and Central Governments for their livelihood. 5. This Court is aware that the present Government introduced a scheme called Navaratnalu for the benefit of the poor people like the petitioner. As per that scheme, they are allotting Ac.0.1 1/2 cents of land for construction of residential house. 6. Under the circumstances, in our view, it is appropriate to direct the 4th respondent/Tahsildar, Ungutur Mandal, West Godavari District to consider the financial condition of the petitioner after considering the representation to be submitted by the petitioner seeking to allot house site under Navaratnalu Scheme and take appropriate decision to allot house site in favour of the petitioner. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.