Sec.53 A.P.PANCHAYAT RAJ Act = No person is authorized to occupy the public property as of right , is liable to be evicted as per law = The discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be exercised in favour of encroachers of public properties, howsoever long standing possession they may have over such properties. = Under Section 53 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, all public roads, sewers, drains, culverts etc., in any village vest in the Gram Panchayats and it is empowered to take steps to remove the encroachments by following the procedure prescribed by the Rules made thereunder. The A.P. Gram Panchayats (Protection of Property) Rules, 2011 lay down the procedure for eviction of the encroachers of the properties vested in the Gram Panchayats. Rule 4 of the said Rules envisages a notice to be given to the encroacher and an order to be passed by the executive authority before the actual eviction takes place. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 has followed this procedure by giving notice to the petitioner and passing an order upon considering the petitioner's explanation. In the absence of any dispute over the fact that the land in occupation of the petitioner is vested in the Gram Panchayat, no elaborate reasons need be assigned by respondent No.1 for rejecting the petitioner's objections = If the petitioner seeks to assert his right over the property in question on the basis of adverse possession, he shall be free to approach the competent Civil Court by instituting an appropriate suit for this purpose. Subject to the liberty given as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9735
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY        

W.P.No.1146 of 2013

18-3-2013

Battula Malakondaiah

Angirekulapadu Gram Panchayat,Represented by its Executive Authority-Cum-
Panchayat Secretary, Lingasamudram Mandal,Prakasam District and others                

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

Counsel for petitioner : Sri Naram Nageswara Rao

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 3 : Sri Raju for Sri G. Elisha Counsel for
respondent No.2 : Sri G. Ramachandra Rao for Sri G. Pedda Babu

?CASES REFERRED:    
Nil

The Court made the following:

ORDER:
        This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside proceedings Rc.No.PS/04/2012, dated 17-1-2013 of respondent No.1 whereby it has rejected the petitioner's representation not to evict him from the land in his occupation in Sy.No.111 of Anneboyinapalle village.
     
The petitioner pleaded that his family is in possession of an extent of
Ac.0-10 cents in the above mentioned survey number 
belonging to respondent No.1. 
That the petitioner is using the said site for placing hayricks, firewood, dung
heaps, tethering cattle etc., and that
he has perfected his rights by adverse
possession.
The petitioner further pleaded that in recognition of his enjoyment
and also the enjoyment of the adjacent lands by other villagers,
respondent No.4
has issued proceedings as far back as 3-9-1980 to the effect that as the land admeasuring Ac.3-54 cents in Sy.No.111 is being used by several villagers for storing hay, cow dung etc., the same is treated as being useful for communal purposes and accordingly the land was transferred to the Gram Panchayat for
public purpose.  
When there was a threat of dispossession by respondent No.1,
the petitioner has filed W.P.No.12428/2012 which was disposed of by order dated
7-12-2012 with the direction to respondent No.1 to give a notice and an
opportunity of being heard before taking appropriate action for eviction of the
petitioner.  
As the said order was not followed, the petitioner filed
W.P.No.628/2013.
This Court has disposed of the said Writ Petition by directing
respondent No.1 not to evict the petitioner unless he is given an opportunity of
being heard and eviction order is passed.  Accordingly, the petitioner was given
an opportunity of filing his explanation.
        In his detailed explanation, the petitioner has claimed that he is in long
standing possession of the subject property and that there is alternative vacant
land belonging to the Gram Panchayat which can be used for construction of the
school building.
The petitioner also pleaded that he has perfected his title by
adverse possession.  
By the impugned order, respondent No.1 has rejected the
petitioner's objections and directed him to handover vacant possession of the
property within 24 hours failing which he will take possession of the property.
Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.
        At the hearing, Sri Naram Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner has perfected his title by
adverse possession; that no proper reasons have been assigned by respondent No.1
in rejecting the very long and detailed explanation submitted by his client and
that there are alternative lands available for construction of a Panchayat
building.
        Sri G. Raju, learned counsel representing Sri G. Elisha, learned counsel
for respondent No.1 and Sri G. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for respondent
No.2, submitted that the petitioner is admittedly in occupation of the land
belonging to the Gram Panchayat and that therefore he has no vested right over
the said property.  They further submitted that the land is required for
construction of a Panchayat building and hence the petitioner is sought to be
evicted.
        Having carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioner does not have
legally enforceable right for grant of mandamus to prevent respondent No.1 from
asserting its right over the property belonging to it.
While admitting that he
has encroached over the land belonging to respondent No.1, the petitioner has
merely claimed that his title to the subject land is mainly based on his
purported adverse possession.
The plea of adverse possession requires to be
established by the petitioner in a competent Civil Court and it is not possible
for this Court to adjudicate upon such a plea.
Having encroached upon the Gram
Panchayat land, the petitioner cannot seek the help of this Court in protecting
his unlawful possession.
The discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be exercised in favour of encroachers of public properties, howsoever long standing possession they may have over such properties.  
Having encroached the land belonging to respondent
No.1, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to suggest that respondent
No.1 can utilize some other land belonging to it.  If such a right is conceded
to an encroacher, there will be no protection to the public properties.
Under
Section 53 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, all public roads, sewers,
drains, culverts etc., in any village vest in the Gram Panchayats and it is
empowered to take steps to remove the encroachments by following the procedure
prescribed by the Rules made thereunder.  The A.P. Gram Panchayats (Protection
of Property) Rules, 2011 lay down the procedure for eviction of the encroachers
of the properties vested in the Gram Panchayats.  Rule 4 of the said Rules
envisages a notice to be given to the encroacher and an order to be passed by
the executive authority before the actual eviction takes place.  It is not in
dispute that respondent No.1 has followed this procedure by giving notice to the
petitioner and passing an order upon considering the petitioner's explanation.
In the absence of any dispute over the fact that the land in occupation of the
petitioner is vested in the Gram Panchayat, no elaborate reasons need be
assigned by respondent No.1 for rejecting the petitioner's objections as pleaded
by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
        For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Writ
Petition.  If the petitioner seeks to assert his right over the property in
question on the basis of adverse possession, he shall be free to approach the
competent Civil Court by instituting an appropriate suit for this purpose.
        Subject to the liberty given as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
        As a sequel, interim order dated 18-1-2013 is vacated and WPMP No.1384 of
2013 is disposed of as infructuous.
________________________  
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 18-3-2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.