ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from changing the revenue classification of Kalam (Thrashing Floor) based on the representation made by the petitioner on 10.04.2022. 2. When the matter came up for hearing on 13.02.2025, this Court passed the following order: "The apprehension of the petitioner is that the subject property which has been classified in the revenue records as 'Kalam' is sought to be changed in order to grant patta to encroachers. 2. Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners by placing reliance upon the Division Bench in W.P.No.33684 of 2018 etc., dated 07.04.2022 submitted that such reclassification cannot be made to accommodate the encroachers and the Division Bench in that case was dealing with the lands which were classified as "Meikkal Poramboke" which was sought to be reclassified as "Grama Natham". The learned counsel also relied upon the judgement of Full Bench of this Court in T.K. Shanmugam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2015 (5) LW 397 . 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that he has only received oral instructions from the Commissioner of Land Administration and he seeks for sometime to take written instructions and submit the same before this Court. 4. Post this case under the caption 'for orders' on 26.02.2025." 3. Heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.M.Murali, learned Government Advocate appearing for third respondent. 4. The issue that is involved is as to whether the District Collector can reclassify the subject property, which has already been classified as "Kalam" (Thrashing Floor). Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that as of now, there is no proposal to grant any patta by re-classifying the land to the encroachers. However, as and when occasion arises, the respondent will consider re-classification of the land. 5. It will be relevant to take note of the judgment that has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly, the judgment of the Full Bench in T.K. Shanmugam's case referred supra. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder: "40. However, as and when occasion arises, the respondent will consider re-classification of the land. 5. It will be relevant to take note of the judgment that has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly, the judgment of the Full Bench in T.K. Shanmugam's case referred supra. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder: "40. As noticed above, the Division Bench while adding a word of caution that they are not advocating a general principle to regularise all encroachments or encourage them observed that if the State Government takes a 'conscious decision' to regularise certain encroachments and if the land is not required for any public purpose, the State Government would be well within the jurisdiction to do so. Thus, the question would be as to what is a 'conscious decision' and what would be the manner in which the appropriate authority will come to a conclusion that the land is not required for public purpose In our view a 'conscious decision' in such cases with particular reference to encroachment in water bodies should be in consonance with the public trust reposed on the Government in respect of such lands (water bodies). The State being a trustee of these natural resources such as tanks, lakes etc. has to necessarily act consistent with the nature of such trust. The vesting of these lands and water bodies with the Government is to benefit the public and any attempt made by the Government to act in a manner derogatory to the object for which the land was vested, has to held to be illegal. The underlying fundamental principle being that such rights are public rights are in a higher pedestal than private rights. We may take a look of the matter from a different perspective. The Government has considered that water bodies, which have fallen into dis-use and have been encroached upon could be declared as not required for any public purpose and the encroachments could be regularised. What the Government has failed to see is the cause as to why these water bodies, lakes, tanks have fallen into dis-use. If this aspect is analysed, it would come to light that in several cases the disuse was man-made and there appears to be a cartel, which systematically works with a view to grab Government property. What the Government has failed to see is the cause as to why these water bodies, lakes, tanks have fallen into dis-use. If this aspect is analysed, it would come to light that in several cases the disuse was man-made and there appears to be a cartel, which systematically works with a view to grab Government property. In such scenario while taking a 'conscious decision', the Government cannot ignore the fiduciary duty of care and responsibility cast upon it and simultaneously analyse as to why such dis-use has occurred. The plethora of decisions on the point elucidate the basis principle of the public trust doctrine when the water bodies vest with the Government, placing the Government in the capacity of a trustee, there is little option except to strictly adhere to the trust and faith reposed and if the Government has failed to protect these water bodies, it amounts to breach of the public trust and in such cases, the duty of the Government is more onerous to restore the land back to its original position and thereby restore the trust reposed on it. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the proposition that merely because a water body has put to dis-use that by itself would be a good ground to regularise the encroachments. 41. The next aspect would be as to how and in what manner the appropriate authority would come to a conclusion that such land is not required for any public purpose or for the State. It may be a policy decision in this regard, but such policy decision has to satisfy the touch-stone of fairness and reasonableness and satisfy Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reading of the Government Orders show that the decision taken with regard to a particular land is not required for the Government for any public purpose is largely based on report submitted by the officials of the Revenue Department and invariably the justifiction is that people have been residing for a long period of time and there has not been any flow of water into tank/lake for several years or the water is unfit for human consumption. In our view, this can hardly be a justification, since the Revenue Authorities have turned a blind eye to encroachments on lands which have, canals/channels through which the water flows into such water bodies. In our view, this can hardly be a justification, since the Revenue Authorities have turned a blind eye to encroachments on lands which have, canals/channels through which the water flows into such water bodies. Once again the Government having failed to protect those feeder channels and canals cannot sight that as an excuse to say that there is no flow of water into the tank/lake and therefore, they would be justified in recommending regularisation of the encroachments." 6. It is also relevant to take note of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in this regard in W.P.No.3501 of 2020, dated 18.02.2020 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder: "It is an undisputed fact that the Puntha is situated in Rs.No.72,73,81 and 83 of Andaluru Village, which is classified as Kallam in Adangal/Pahani of Andaluru Village for the Fasli 1429 in columns 12 and 13. This classification of land is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government for Revenue and similarly Form- 1B also discloses the classification of land in columns 2 and 3 as ‘Kallam’ whereas in columns 6 and 8 it is noted as ‘government land (prabhutva bhoomi). Thus, there is no dispute regarding classification of the land as ‘Kallam’ (thrashing floor). When, once the land is classified as ‘Kallam’ it would fall within the meaning of communal land i.e., for using the same by the entire villagers and would not fall under Section 3 of the Estates Lands Act to treat the same as ‘Government land’. Therefore, there is a difference between the common land and community land and roads and road margins as ‘prabhutva bhoomi’ etc., road and road margins cannot be treated as common lands as the villagers and also other persons using the roads and its margins, but whereas the common land or community land is being used by the specific community only. Hence, ‘Kallam” is communal land. Hence, ‘Kallam” is communal land. Even otherwise, it is for the benefit of villagers to use the same as threshing floor and for grazing cattle it would attract BSO 15(4) of A.P. Revenue Board Standing Orders and the same cannot be assigned even if it is not required for the present by the Government, it can be leased out on eksal lease basis for agricultural purposes and cannot be converted into ‘government land’ to assign the same invoking powers under Para 2 of the BSO 15 of A.P. Revenue Board Standing Orders. On the other hand, use of the land as thrashing floor can be said to be customary easement. Thus, the petitioners being the villagers cannot be deprived of right of enjoyment to use the land as threshing floor. The Apex Court in Jagpal Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others (referred supra) in Para 3 held as follows:- Para 3: The protection of common rights of the villagers were so zealously protected that some legislation expressly mentioned that even the vesting of the property with the State did not mean that the common rights of villagers were lost by such vesting. Thus, in Chigurupati Venkata Subbayya v. Paleduga Anjayya, (1972) 1 SCC 521 the Court observed in Para 23 as follows: “23. It is true that the suit lands in view of Section 3 of the Estates Abolition Act did vest in the Government. That by itself does not mean that the rights of the community over it were taken away. Our attention has not been invited to any provision of law under which the rights of community over those lands can be said to have been taken away. The rights of the community over the suit lands were not created by the principal or any other landholder. Hence those rights cannot be said to have been abrogated by Section 3(c) of the Estates Abolition Act.” In pursuance of the judgment of the Apex Court the State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.188, dt.21.07.2011 laid down certain guidelines for Eviction of Encroachers as follows:- (i) Where it is brought to the notice that any property of the Panchayat is under occupation of any persons the Executive authority (Panchayat Secretary) shall serve a notice to the party concerned and give a brief hearing before proceeding for eviction. (ii) Suitable orders shall be passed by the Executive authority (Panchayat Secretary) before actual eviction takes place. (iii) The Divisional Panchayat Officer will conduct a monthly review of these cases for protecting Gram Panchayat properties in his jurisdiction through monitoring the process of eviction. He will also give periodical reports to District Panchayat Officer, who will review the cases once in two months; (iv) The Executive authority (Panchayat Secretary) may take necessary assistance from the police as per Section 139 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994; (v) The evicted property of the Gram Panchayat shall be protected by making fencing or by construction a compound wall depending on the value of the property and by displaying a notice board; (vi) A permanent register on encroachment of Panchayat properties shall be maintained in all Gram Panchayats and the same will be validated in the Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat meetings at least twice in a year; (vii) Aggrieved parties may file representations to the Executive Authority (Panchayat Secretary) concerned by marking a copy to the Divisional Panchayat Officer; (viii) The petitions filed by the aggrieved parties will be mentioned and disposed of by the Divisional Panchayat Officer/District Panchayat Officer. Instead of following these guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.188, dt.21.07.2011, the respondents are trying to deprive this petitioner from enjoying the right in common property for the benefit of villagers, as threshing floor, which is impermissible in view of the law declared in the judgment of Apex Court in “Jagpal Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others” (referred supra). As per Section 53 of the Panchayat Raj Act, all public roads in any village, other than National Highways and State Highways vest in gram panchayat for the purpose of maintenance. If any immovable property for the purpose of maintenance or for achieving any of the public purpose is required, Gram Panchayat has to acquire the same through appropriate Revenue Authority, acquire the land following the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. ( vide G. Venkata Reddy v. E.O, G.P. Kollapur Village and Mandal and Post, 2010 (4) ALD 374 ). ( vide G. Venkata Reddy v. E.O, G.P. Kollapur Village and Mandal and Post, 2010 (4) ALD 374 ). Thus, it is clear from the law declared by the Court that, when the property is deemed to have been vested, it is for the purpose of maintenance and even if the panchayat wants to take over the property, has to follow the process of acquiring the property, i.e. by acquiring the property through revenue department, they cannot take the property by claiming ownership. Similarly, according to Section 55 of the Panchayat Raj, communal property is also deemed to have been vested in the panchayat and the income derived there from can be utilized by the gram panchayat for the benefit of the villagers in common or the holders in common of village land generally or of lands of a particular description or of lands under a particular source of irrigation, shall vest in the gram panchayat and be administered by it for the benefit of the villagers or holders. Section 58 of the Panchayat Raj Act deals with special procedure to divest the tanks, roads, etc, specified in Sections 53, 54, 55 & 57, including the porambokes namely, grazing grounds, thrashing floors, burning and burial grounds, cattle stands, cart tracks and topes, which are at the disposal of the Government and are not required by them for any specific purpose shall vest in the Gram Panchayat subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2) of Section 58 says that, the Government may, at any time by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, direct that any porambokes referred to in subsection (1) shall cease to vest in the Gram Panchayat if it is required by them for any specific purpose and thereupon such porambokes shall vest in the Government. Therefore, a gazette notification is necessary to divest the property from Gram Panchayat and vest the same on the government. In the absence of any notification issued by the Government divesting Gram Panchayats of any poramboke lands, there cannot be any use of panchayat land by following B.S.O 15(2), the same cannot be assigned to the landless poor for house sites or otherwise. Thus, unless there is a notification by the Government divesting gram panchayat and vesting in Government any property referred above, there cannot be any use of panchayat land for any other purpose. Thus, unless there is a notification by the Government divesting gram panchayat and vesting in Government any property referred above, there cannot be any use of panchayat land for any other purpose. (vide Rythu Seva Sangam, Yenamadurru v. Bhimavaram Municipality, 2012 (5) ALT 631 and Banne Gandhi and others v. District Collector, 2007 (2) ALT 550 ). A similar issue like distribution of gramakantam land which is community land to the landless poor came up for consideration in Sarpanch Palakda Gram Panchayat v. District Collector, 1997 (2) ALT 486 , where the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that distribution or assignment of ‘gramakantam’ which is community land to anyone by Government without issuing any notification, divesting such land from Panchayat is illegal. By applying these principles to the present facts of the case, the proposed assignment without vesting the land on the Government that vested on the gram panchayat by virtue of the provisions referred above is a serious illegality. Therefore, the proposed assignment of Kallam i.e. thrashing floor for house sites to the Weaker Sections that vested on the gram panchayat without de-notifying by issuing gazette notification, as mandated under Section 58(2) of the Panchayat Raj Act is a serious illegality, which vitiates the entire procedure. In the present facts of the case, no procedure prescribed under Section 58(2) of Panchayat Raj Act is followed. On this ground alone, the action of respondents in taking steps to assign the land, which is being used by the petitioners are Kallam, for house sites to the Weaker Sections, is liable to be set aside. Hence, I find that the action of the respondents in proposing to assign house site plots in the land in R.S.Nos.81 and 83 of Andaluru Village, Veeravasaram Mandal, West Godavari District (which is classified as KALLAM/Puntha), by changing the nature of classification of the land from Kallam/Puntha i.e. communal land to Government assessed waste as illegal and arbitrary and the respondents are directed not to change the classification/nature of the land in R.S.No.81 and 83 of Andaluru Village, Veeravasaram Mandal, West Godavari District, except by following the procedure as discussed above." 7. In the considered view of this Court, the re-classification of a Kalam, which is for the benefit of the villagers, cannot be done by the District Collector or any other authorities. In the considered view of this Court, the re-classification of a Kalam, which is for the benefit of the villagers, cannot be done by the District Collector or any other authorities. If at all any such re- classification is done, it is for the Government to take a decision by following the proper procedure. Hence, this Court holds that the official respondents as such do not have the power to reclassify the subject property or grant patta in favour of anyone. This observation will sufficiently take care of the grievance expressed by the petitioner. 8. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.