ORDER: 1. The petitioners are residents of Ananthavaram Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District. They have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition being aggrieved by the construction of a Grama Sachivalayam building in Sy.No.129 & 129-B of the said village. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that a Gram Panchayat office of this village had been established in the Dalitwada about 60 years back. Thereafter, the Government had recently issued G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 19.07.2019, which stipulated the necessity of having Village Secretariat buildings at every Gram Panchayat. On account of this G.O., a proposal was mooted for construction of a Gram Sachivalayam building. Initially, it was understood that this building would be constructed in the same locality where the Gram Panchayat office is located. The petitioners and other villagers are also said to have purchased about Ac.0.07 cents of land in Sy.No.133 of the village for construction of a Grama Sachivalayam building. However, the authorities without conducting any Gramasabha for taking a decision on this issue and without considering any of the objections raised by the petitioners and other villagers, had decided to construct a Grama Sachivalayam building in Sy.No.129 & 129-B after having obtained Ac.0.40 cents of land in that survey number from another village, by way of a gift deed. The petitioners oppose the construction of the Grama Sachivalayam in the new location. 3. Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the proposed location of the Grama Sachivalayam building was never under consideration initially. It was always understood by the villagers that a new building would be constructed close to the existing Gram Panchayat office. On that basis, the villagers had also donated Ac.0.07 cents of land for the Grama Sachivalayam building. When the new location was proposed, the petitioners and other villagers objected to the said location and had given objections. These objections were not considered while deciding the new location. 4. Sri Jada Sravan Kumar further contends that the new location is far away from the location of the present Gram Panchayat office and this location has been chosen, due to the interference of the local politicians, who sought to take away the Grama Sachivalayam building from the present location to meet their personal requirements. 4. Sri Jada Sravan Kumar further contends that the new location is far away from the location of the present Gram Panchayat office and this location has been chosen, due to the interference of the local politicians, who sought to take away the Grama Sachivalayam building from the present location to meet their personal requirements. He submits that the residents of the Dalitwada would find it extremely difficult to obtain services from the new Grama Sachivalayam office as it is quite far away. He further submits that the new location is prone to flooding during the rainy season and none of the residents of the village would be able to obtain any service from the Grama Sachivalayam during the rainy season as it would be flooded with rain water. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 8th respondent. It is the case of the 8th respondent that the 8th respondent- Gram Panchayat consists of five hamlets, viz., Ananthavaram, Tallapalem, Pasukudum, Kessupalem and Thetupuram. It also states that the Village Secretariat would have to serve Velagapudi Gram Panchayat also. This is because, a Grama Sachivalayam would be constructed to serve at least 2000 people and neither of these Gram Panchayats have a population of more than 2000 people. After the proposal for construction of a Grama Sachivalayam had been raised, one Sri Alluri Venkata Satya Narayana Raju had come forward and donated Ac.0.40 cents of land in Sy.No.129 for construction of the Village Secretary. Thereupon, a notice dated 29.11.2021 was published at the office of the Grama Sachivalayam, Tahsildar office and MDO Office and at conspicuous places, calling for objections, if any, from the villagers for the new location. Since no objections were received, a Grama sabha was also conducted on 05.12.2021. As no objections were raised by any of the villagers in this Gramasabha and the offer made by Sri Alluri Venkata Satya Narayana Raju was agreed unanimously, a resolution was also passed to that effect. 6. After these proceedings had been completed, the Tahsildar, Tanguturu issued proceedings dated 10.12.2021 accepting the offer of Sri Alluri Venkata Satya Narayana Raju and the said land was handed over to the Assistant Engineer, Mandal Parishad, Tanguturu on 20.01.2022. Thereafter, the construction of the building was taken up and basement of the building had been constructed even before the writ petition itself had been filed. 7. Thereafter, the construction of the building was taken up and basement of the building had been constructed even before the writ petition itself had been filed. 7. The 8th respondent contends that the new location is 100 mts., away from the present Gram Panchayat office and as such the objection of the petitioners that the new building will be far away, is incorrect. The 8th respondent also took the stand that there is a proposal to construct as many as five buildings, viz., Bulk Milk Cooling Centre, Raithu Bharosa Kendram, Village Secretariat, Primary Health Centre and multi-Extension Facilitation Centre. The area of Ac.0.07 cents offered by the writ petitioners would not be sufficient for housing these five buildings. However, Ac.0.40 cents of land, which has been offered by Sri Alluri Venkata Satya Narayana Raju, would be sufficient for that purpose. The 8th respondent contends that in view of these facts, the location of the Grama Sachivalayam in Sy.No.129 and 129-B of Ananthavaram village cannot be faulted. The said decision is not an arbitrary decision and has been taken after due consideration of all the factors relevant to the issue. 8. The first objection taken by the petitioners is on the distance between the present Gram Panchayat office and the proposed Gram Sachivalayam. The petitioners contend that the proposed location is far away from the present office. 9. The 8th respondent took the stand that the distance between the two locations is only 100 mts. With a view to have a prima facie understanding of this issue, the 8th respondent was called upon to produce a Google map showing these two locations. The distance between these two locations shown in the said Google map is 457 mts. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the distance between these two locations is so far that the villagers would have difficulty in going to the new location. 10. The 2nd objection taken by the petitioners is that a Gramasabha has to be conducted in accordance with Section 4(3) and Section 6(2) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with Sections 45 and 46 of the Act. The petitioners rely upon G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 21.07.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.791 dated 7.11.2013 to contend that the location of the Grama Sachivalayam building cannot be fixed without conducting a Gramasabha and without obtaining the approval of the Gramasabha for that purpose. 11. The petitioners rely upon G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 21.07.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.791 dated 7.11.2013 to contend that the location of the Grama Sachivalayam building cannot be fixed without conducting a Gramasabha and without obtaining the approval of the Gramasabha for that purpose. 11. Article 243 of the Constitution was amended by the 73rd Constitution Amendment Act, 1992. This amendment brought in the concept of Gramasabha and the role of the Gramasabha in the functioning of the Gram Panchayat. Article 243-A of the Constitution enabled a Gramasabha to exercise such powers and perform such functions at the village level as the legislature of the State may, by law, provide. This provision is an enabling provision empowering the State to delegate or assign such functions, at the village level, as the legislature may deem fit. In pursuance of this enabling provision, Section 6 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 stipulated the following functions that are to be performed by the Gramasabha. i) Annual statement of accounts and audit report; ii) Report on the administration of the preceding year; iii) Programme of works for the year or any new programme not covered by the budget or the annual programme; iv) Proposals for fresh taxation or for enhancement of existing taxes. v) Selection of schemes, beneficiaries and locations; and vi) Such other matters as may be prescribed. 12. The Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.791 dated 07.11.2013 expanding the matters which are to be placed before a Gramasabha. These additional matters are:- i) Village agricultural production plans; ii) Work of village volunteer force; iii) Utilization of land development funds; iv) Work of Cooperatives; v) Particulars of location of common lands in villages i.e., porambokes vesting in Panchayats and other relevant particulars; vi) Particulars of transfers of ownership of houses and other immovable properties; vii) Copy of the approved budget estimates of the Gram Panchayat; viii) Copy of the audit report on the accounts of the Gram Panchayat; and ix) List of defaulters, who are in arrears of payment of taxes and fees due to the Gram Panchayat. 13. A perusal of the above subjects would show that the question of location of a Gramasabha is not covered by any of the subjects enumerated under Section 6 of the Panchayat Raj Act or the additional subjects enumerated in G.O.Ms.No.791 dated 07.11.2013. 14. 13. A perusal of the above subjects would show that the question of location of a Gramasabha is not covered by any of the subjects enumerated under Section 6 of the Panchayat Raj Act or the additional subjects enumerated in G.O.Ms.No.791 dated 07.11.2013. 14. The spirit of the Panchayat Raj Act and the intention behind the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act is to empower the residents of the village to take decisions relating to the functioning of the local body, viz., the Gram Panchayat. In the spirit of this intention, it would be appropriate to ask the Gramasabha to take a decision even on issues such as the location of the Grama Sachivalayam. However, such an intention, is not enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the said subject is shown to have been delegated or assigned to the Gramasabha either by the legislature of the State or by way of an executive decision in the form of a Government Order. In the absence of such a provision, it would not be appropriate for this Court to strike down any decision taken, in relation to the location of a Grama Sachivalayam, on the ground that the said decision had been taken without the approval of a duly convened Gramasabha. 15. The petitioners contend that no Gramasabha was held. The 8th respondent contends that a Gramasabha was held on 05.12.2021. Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners would draw the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 19.07.2019 as well as the provisions of Section 6 of the Panchayat Raj Act and G.O.Ms.No.791 dated 07.11.2013 to contend that there is a specific procedure prescribed under the Act and the G.Os mentioned above for the conduct of a Gramasabha. He submits that none of these procedures had been followed and as such it would have to be held that no such Gramasabha had been held on 05.12.2021. He relies upon a judgment of the learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Kurapati Bangaraiah and Ors., vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 2015 (5) ALD 622 = 2015 (6) ALT 573 . He relies upon a judgment of the learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Kurapati Bangaraiah and Ors., vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 2015 (5) ALD 622 = 2015 (6) ALT 573 . In this judgment, the learned single Judge had set out the procedure that needs to be followed and the records that need to be maintained relating to the meeting of the Gramasabha and had held that, in the facts of that case, the said procedure had not been followed and had set aside the G.Os issued for amalgamation of certain Gram Panchayats. 16. In the present case also, the 8th respondent has not produced any of the records demonstrating the conduct of the said Gramasabha except a copy of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 06.12.2021. The burden of demonstrating the conduct of a Gramasabha, in view of the specific allegations made in this regard by the petitioner, is on the 8th respondent-Gram Panchayat. However, the 8th respondent has not discharged that burden of proof as none of the records have been placed before this Court. Accordingly, the proceedings of the Gramasabha said to have been held on 05.12.2021 would have to be ignored. 17. In view of the above observations of this Court, that approval of the Gramasabha does not appear to be necessary for deciding the location of the Grama Sachivalayam, the question whether a Gramasabha was held or was not held, would not be relevant and the decision recording the location of the Grama Sachivalayam cannot be set aside on the ground that the said location was not approved by the Gramasabha. 18. The petitioners contend that they have given representations objecting to the proposed location. Which were not considered before a decision was taken. 19. The 8th respondent has taken the stand that no objections were received from any person after the notice dated 29.11.2021 was published in the year and that no objections were received in the Gramasabha said to have been conducted on 05.12.2021. Further, the decision relating to the location was taken on 10.12.2021. 20. The petitioners have filed copies of the representations that are said to have been submitted by them to the authorities. The representations are dated 20.01.2020, 29.06.2021, 13.01.2020, 17.07.2021, 14.02.2022, 13.08.2021 & 16.02.2021. Further, the decision relating to the location was taken on 10.12.2021. 20. The petitioners have filed copies of the representations that are said to have been submitted by them to the authorities. The representations are dated 20.01.2020, 29.06.2021, 13.01.2020, 17.07.2021, 14.02.2022, 13.08.2021 & 16.02.2021. Out of all these representations, the representation dated 20.01.2020, said to have been submitted to the Tahsildar bears an acknowledgement. This representation was to the effect that the integrated Grama Sachivalayam should be constructed in the same area where the existing Gram Panchayat building failing or another site near the Anganwadi building consisting of Ac.0.25 cents should be considered. There were no objections relating to the proposed location in Sy.No.129. In any event, that proposal came much later. 21. The objections relating to the location of the Grama Sachivalayam in Sy.No.129 were raised in the representations dated 29.06.2021, 17.07.2021 and 16.02.2021. However, these representations were addressed to the members of the Cabinet and the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and copies are said to have been marked to the official respondents in this writ petition. These representations do not have any acknowledgment of receipt of the said representations. In the circumstances, it would be difficult to base any decision on the basis of these representations. In any event, the official notice relating to the site in Sy.No.129 was issued on 29.11.2021 and the land offered in Sy.No.129 was accepted on 10.12.2021. It appears that none of the representations said to have been submitted by the petitioners, pertain to that period. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the decision taken for locating the Grama Sachivalayam in Sy.No.129 has been taken without considering the objections raised by the petitioners or other residents of the village. 22. Apart from the above, the question of the scope of judicial review in these matters remains. With a view to change the revenue administration, in the state of Andhra Pradesh, the earlier system of talukas and firkas was replaced with Mandals under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh District (Formation) Act, 1974 as amended by the Andhra Pradesh District (Formation) Amendment Act, 1985. Various objections were raised in relation to the location of various Mandal headquarters. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with these challenges in J.R. Raghupathy v. State of A.P., (1988) 4 SCC 364 at page 370, had held as follows: 9. Various objections were raised in relation to the location of various Mandal headquarters. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with these challenges in J.R. Raghupathy v. State of A.P., (1988) 4 SCC 364 at page 370, had held as follows: 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. As held above, the scope of judicial review, in these matters, would not go to the extent of the Court evaluating various factors and substituting the judgement of the executive with it’s own judgement. In the absence of malafides, bad faith, violation of fundamental rights of the citizens, arbitrariness writ large and such similar grounds, the Courts would not interfere. This Court does not find any such ground to interfere in this case. 23. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.