Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1028 (AP)

B. Ravindra Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-10-14

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

body2022
ORDER : This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to construct the Grama Sachivalayam of Puttayapalli Village, Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District, at Godugunur Village instead of existing location of Puttayapalli Gram Panchayat office contrary to G.O.Ms.No.110, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, dated 19.07.2020 issued by the 1st respondent and also the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 10.01.2020, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Briefly, the case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are residents of hamlet villages of Puttayapalli Gram Panchayat, Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District and they are marginal farmers. The population of the village is 1700. The 2nd respondent granted sanction for construction of Grama Sachivalayam at Puttayapalli Village vide proceedings dated 10.01.2020. Pursuant to which, the Tahsildar of Badvel Mandal, submitted a report to the 3rd respondent stating that Survey Nos.358 and 118 of Puttayapalli are suitable for construction of Grama Sachivalayam. But, without conducting Gramasabha at Puttayapalli, the construction was started at Godugunur village at Sy.No.228-1, instead of constructing the Grama Sachivalayam at Puttayapalli village. The alleged action was made at the instance of the local leaders for appreciation of real estate values at Godugunur village. The Grama Sachivalayam would be convenient for the public, if it is constructed at Puttayapalli village as the Gram Panchayat office is adjacent to the proposed construction. If the Grama Sachivalayam building is constructed in Godugunur village, it would cause great difficulty to the residents of Puttayapalli village. Hence the writ petition. 3. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that Puttayapalli Gram Panchayat consists of five habitations namely, Puttayapalli, Puttayapalli B.C. colony, Godugunur, Godugunur HW and Ramakrishnapuram. In consonance with the new village secretariat system, it is proposed to construct Grama Sachivalayam, Rythu Bharosa Kendram and Village health Clinic and instructions were issued to take up the construction in Ac.0.10 cents, Ac.0.08 cents and Ac.0.05 cents respectively at single premises. The 3rd respondent instructed all the Tahsildars to identify suitable land for the proposed construction in due consultation with other officials of Gram Panchayat. Initially, a vacant land at Puttayapalli village was identified of an extent of Ac.0.10 cents, but it was dropped at the proposal stage because of the reason that the villagers raised objections as it is surrounded by a Temple and a School. Initially, a vacant land at Puttayapalli village was identified of an extent of Ac.0.10 cents, but it was dropped at the proposal stage because of the reason that the villagers raised objections as it is surrounded by a Temple and a School. Later, an extent of Ac.0.23 cents in Sy.No.228/6 was identified as suitable for the proposed construction and a resolution was passed on 11.06.2020 consenting for the same. The proposed construction at Sy.No.228/6 of Godugunur village was also approved by a Committee consisting of the Tahsildar, the MPDO, the Medical Officer, the Mandal Agriculture Officer and the Assistant Engineer (PR). Thus, the said decision was taken on administrative convenience and in the public interest. The petitioners are trying to stall the construction on one reason or the other contrary to the public interest. There is no illegality or violation of any rule in identifying or constructing the Village Secretariat at Sy.No.228-6, Godugunur Revenue village of Puttayapalli Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that out of five habitations, Puttayapalli and Puttayapalli B.C. colony are located at one place and the other three habitations are located at another place. If the construction of proposed buildings is made at Puttayapalli, it would cause difficulty to the people of Ramakrishnapuram village which is 4 kms. away from Puttayapalli village. The construction at Godugunur village is more suitable for all the people. The site identified for new village secretariat building is just 1 km away from Puttayapalli village/present Gram Panchayat office and located adjacent to Puttayapalli-Badvel road. The 3rd respondent has given administrative approval for construction of new Village Secretariat building. Accordingly, construction work has been taken up and 50% of the work was already completed on the field even before filing of the instant writ petition. There are no merits in the writ petition and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard Sri M. Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4, Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, and Sri Srinivas Basava, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 12. 6. 5. Heard Sri M. Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4, Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, and Sri Srinivas Basava, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 12. 6. The admitted facts are that initially, the 3rd respondent granted administrative sanction for construction of Grama Sachivalayam buildings in PRI Division, Rajampeta, Kadapa District vide proceedings dated 10.01.2020. Serial number 17 of the work-wise details relates to Badvel Mandal and out of five, one Grama Sachivalayam was sanctioned in favour of the 6th respondent-Gram Panchayat to be constructed at Puttayapalli village. Further, the Tahsildar, Badvel Mandal, submitted a report to the 3rd respondent to the effect that Sy.Nos.358 and 118 of Puttayapalli are suitable for construction of Grama Sachivalayam. The Puttayapalli Gram Panchayat consists of five habitations, they are Puttayapalli, Puttayapalli B.C. colony, Godugunur, Godugunur HW and Ramakrishnapuram and out of five habitations, Puttayapalli and Puttayapalli B.C. colony are located at one place and the other three habitations are located at another place. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the change of construction of Grama Sachivalayam from Puttayapalli to Godugunur village is at the behest of local leaders of party in power and it is for real estate purpose only and not at the convenience of the people, is not sustainable for the reason that the petitioners are unable to demonstrate the administrative action regarding shifting of Grama Sachivalayam to Godugunur village which is nearer to three habitations, namely, Godugunur, Godugunur HW and Ramakrishnapuram which are 4 kms. away from Puttayapalli village. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that once the administrative sanction was accorded and also a report was submitted with regard to suitability and identification of land at Puttayapalli village, it cannot be changed to any other location other than the sanctioned location without conducting Gramasabha of Puttayapalli village, is also not sustainable and against the procedure contemplated under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as well as G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 19.07.2020, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.R. Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P., (1988) 4 SCC 364 as well as the orders passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.965 of 2021 and 16740 of 2021 dated 05.05.2022. In J.R. Raghupathy case (1 supra), the Apex Court held at paras 9, 17 and 31 as under : “9. It will serve no useful purpose to delineate the facts in all the cases which follow more or less on the same lines. We are of the opinion that the High Court had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the decision of the state Government to locate the Mandal Headquarters at a particular place. The decision to locate such headquarters at a particular village is dependent upon various factors. The High Court obviously could not evaluate for itself the comparative merits of a particular place as against the other for location of the Mandal Headquarters. In some of the cases the High Court declined to interfere saying that the Government was the best judge of the situation in the matter of location of Mandal Headquarters. However, in a few cases the High Court while quashing the impugned notifications for location of Mandal Headquarters issued under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act on the ground that there was a breach of the guidelines, directed the Government to reconsider the question after hearing the parties. 17. We find it rather difficult to sustain the interference by the High Court in some of the cases with location of Mandal Headquarters and quashing of the impugned notification on the ground that the Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience or that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the areas surrounded by it or that merely because a particular person who was an influential member of Legislative Assembly belonging to the party in opposition had the right of representation but failed to avail of it. The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like Gram Panchayats and the general public keeping in view the relevant factors. Even assuming that any breach of the guidelines was justifiable, the utmost that the High Court could have done was to quash the impugned notification in a particular case and direct the Government to reconsider the question. There was no warrant for the High Court to have gone further and directed the shifting of the Mandal Headquarters to a particular place. 31. We find it rather difficult to sustain the judgment of the High Court in some of the cases where it has interfered with the location of Mandal Headquarters and quashed the impugned notifications on the ground that the Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that once place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience, or that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the area surrounded by it. The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet sub-committee of the proposals submitted by the collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like the gram panchayats and the general public. Even assuming that the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters should be at place “X” rather than place “Y” as recommended by the collector concerned in a particular case, the High court would not have issued writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners.” 8. The contention of the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj that the land available and identified at Puttayapalli village is only Ac.0.10 cents where one Grama Sachivayalam can be constructed; but, as per the policy of the 1st respondent, Grama Sachivalayam, Rythu Bharosa Kendram and Village health Clinic shall be constructed at one location for the convenience of the people and therefore, the present land at Puttayapalli village is not suitable for construction of these three public offices; and the present identified place to an extent of Ac.0.23 cents in Sy.No.228/6 in Godugunur village was donated by third parties for construction of the above three public offices and to that effect a resolution was also passed on 11.06.2020 by the 6th respondent-Gram Panchayat, as such, the present construction of Grama Sachivalayam and other buildings cannot be interfered with, should be considered. The other contention of the learned Government Pleader is that some villagers of Puttayapalli raised objections for construction of Grama Sachivalayam at the earlier identified place on the ground that the identified land is surrounded by a Temple and a School. The proposed construction is not suitable and it would create traffic hazards as well as disturbance to the peaceful atmosphere of the Temple and the School. In view of the same, the contention of the learned Government Pleader is tenable. The contention of the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents that out of five habitations, Puttayapalli and Puttayapalli B.C. colony are located at one place and the other three habitations are located at another place; if the construction of proposed Grama Sachivalayam building is made at Puttayapalli, it would cause difficulty to the people of other three habitations which are 4 kms. away from Puttayapalli village; the construction at Godugunur village is more suitable for all the people; and the new site identified for construction of Grama Sachivalayam building is just 1 km. away from Puttayapalli village/present Gram Panchayat office, is sustainable, in view of the material placed along with the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent and in view of the fact that the site identified at Puttayapalli village is only Ac.0.10 cents, whereas the site identified at Godugunur Village is double to the land at Puttayapalli village i.e., Ac.0.23 cents which is more convenient for construction of the public offices. 9. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merits in the writ petition and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.