- ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent authorities in initiating process for taking over the property of the petitioner in Sy.No.117/1 A Kotekal Village Yemiganuru Mandal, Kurnool district in the name of water treatment plant without acquiring the property is illegal, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents not to take over the property of the petitioner in Sy.No.117/1 A Kotekal Village Yemiganuru Mandal, Kurnool district in the name of water treatment plant without acquiring the property alternatively vacating the property if necessary by taking away the equipment and also pay compensation for occupying the property of the petitioner all these years and pass...” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayatraj Department appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5, the learned Standing counsel for Grampanchayat appearing for the respondent No.6. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.0.01 cents in Sy. No.117/1A situated at Kotekal Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District. While so, under the guise of constructing a water treatment plant, the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are trying to take over the petitioner’s land without following due process of law and without acquiring the subject property in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013). Hence, the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.30 cents in Sy. No.117/1A vested with the petitioner, having been acquired through his ancestors by way of succession, and was later divided into five shares among the family members of the petitioner. He further submits that the subject land was handed over to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 (Gram Panchayat) for the purpose of constructing a water treatment plant, with the understanding that such constructed water treatment plant would be handed over back to the petitioner for maintenance. He further submits that the subject land was handed over to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 (Gram Panchayat) for the purpose of constructing a water treatment plant, with the understanding that such constructed water treatment plant would be handed over back to the petitioner for maintenance. He contends that the respondents neither granted maintenance rights to the petitioner in respect of the constructed water treatment plant on his private land nor acquired the subject property through lawful means. Therefore, the water treatment plant already constructed is liable to be removed from the petitioner’s land. - 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the respondents filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the 4 th respondent, where in it is stated as follows:- “It is submitted that as per the request of the villagers, RWS department constructed a water treatment plant under the above said over head water tank and the same was handed over to the Grampanchayat on 20.01.2016 and the same was endorsed by Secretary and Sarpanch of the village, thereafter said plant has been maintained by the Grampanchayat. I submitted that we never promised the petitioner at any point of time that we will acquire the land in issue from the petitioner and allow the petitioner to continue to have access to his house and further we never asked to him to continue to look after water supply. It is utterly false to say that officers of our department asked the petitioner to maintain water treatment plant. It is further submitted that we never appointed the petitioner to maintain water plant, once we handed over the water plant to the grampanchayat. It is submitted that in fact we are the necessary parties to the present writ petition as such the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable on the ground of mis-joinder of parties.” 6. In view of the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent that the subject overhead tank was constructed in the year 1994, and the purified water plant was also constructed prior to 2016. The same was handed over to the 6 th respondent-Gram Panchayat on 20.01.2016. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the water treatment plant was handed over to him and that he has rights over the subject plant is contrary to the facts. - 7. The same was handed over to the 6 th respondent-Gram Panchayat on 20.01.2016. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the water treatment plant was handed over to him and that he has rights over the subject plant is contrary to the facts. - 7. She further submits that the 5 th respondent also filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioner neither filed any Pattadar Passbook nor any document to prove his title or possession over the subject property. It is further submitted that the running of the water treatment plant by the petitioner was only with the permission of the Gram Panchayat, at a rate fixed by it, and for a specific period as per the permission granted by the 6 th respondent-Gram Panchayat. 8. The learned Standing counsel for Grampanchayat appearing for the 6 th respondent also filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that as follows:- “It is submitted that in response to the averments made in paras 4 to 6 that, the answering the respondent submits that Bodabanda village is a hamlet village of Kotekal Gram Panchayat of Yemmingaur mandal, Kurnool district it is learnt from the villagers that to provide drinking water to the villagers over head water tank has been sanctioned and built under PWS scheme in the year 1994 in an extent of 0.1 cents of the land in Sy.No.117/1A classified as grama kantam land as per the revenue records. - It is further submitted that after completion of water treatment plant, the RWS department handed over the same to the gram panchayat for further maintenance on 20.01.2016, the Gram Panchayat keeping in view the circumstances prevailing and also keeping in mind to supply purified water to the villages at a minimal rate, maintenance of the plant is entrusted to the petitioner on a condition to supply drinking water at a reasonable rate duly meeting the expenditure for its maintenance”. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for the 6 th respondent also submits that the subject land is neither owned by the petitioner nor donated by him to the Gram Panchayat, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and further submits that the land in question is classified as Grama Kantam land, on which the overhead tank was also constructed in the year 1994. The water treatment plant was constructed well before 2016, whereas the petitioner filed the present writ petition only in the year 2019 after lapse of three years. 10. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner denied the contentions of the respondents and submitted that the Pahani filed by the petitioner indicates that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land. Hence, the respondents cannot claim the land as Grama Kantam. - 11. Considering the submissions made by all the learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the overhead tank was constructed in the year 1994 by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to meet the drinking water needs of the villagers, in the interest of the general public. Subsequently, due to water contamination issues in the village, treatment plants were established. As part of that, the respondents No. 4 and 5 constructed a water treatment plant adjacent to the overhead tank at the 6 th respondent village. 12. It is further stated that, as per the records, the subject land is classified as Grama Kantam. The overhead tank was constructed approximately three decades ago, and the water treatment plant was also constructed around a decade ago. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the land was vested with him and donated by him for such construction of the water plant, and later handed over to him for maintenance, is not supported by any evidence. There is no material nor any pleading or not even a whisper in the petitioner’s affidavit regarding any such donation of the land to the respondents. - 13. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if he claims that the land is vested with him as per the Panchayatraj rules 1996, he is required to establish his title over the subject property by initiating appropriate legal proceedings before a competent court of law against the respondents. 14. On perusal of the counter affidavits filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6, it appears that the subject water treatment plant is vested with the Gram Panchayat and has been operated by it since 2016. In view of the facts stated above, it is evident that the subject land is vested with the 6 th respondent-Gram Panchayat. 15. 14. On perusal of the counter affidavits filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6, it appears that the subject water treatment plant is vested with the Gram Panchayat and has been operated by it since 2016. In view of the facts stated above, it is evident that the subject land is vested with the 6 th respondent-Gram Panchayat. 15. Therefore, in view of the reasons stated above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent court of law to establish his title over the subject property. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed.