KOLA VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Kola Veera Venkata Satyanarayana
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
D V S S Somayajulu, J. -
(1.)This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
"To issue a writ of Mandamus being aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in illegally changing classification of communal cart track/water body land vide its proceedings dated 19.10.2019 in Sy.No.332 for an extent of Ac.0.35 cents as burial ground situated at Rameswaram Village, Atchuthapuramtrayam Revenue Village, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District is without authority and illegal and consequently set aside the proceedings dated 19.10.2019 and further direct the respondents preserve the communal pathway/cart track land and water body situated at Sy.No.332/2 for an extent of Ac.0.35 cents of Rameswaram Village, Atchuthapuramtrayam Revenue Village, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District as the same without changing its classification."
(2.)This Court has heard Sri S.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Government Pleader has obtained written instructions from respondent No.5 and has argued the matter.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the three petitioners in this case are residents of Rameswaram Village, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. They all have lands in that said Village and they are cultivating the same. The petitioners point out that in their Village, the extent of Ac.5.03 cents of land in Sy.No.332 is classified as cart track/water body and that without following the due process of law, the Panchayat has passed a resolution to change the classification of the cart track into a burial ground. It is his contention that in and around this cart track, a number of villagers have their lands and they are using the said land for threshing grains and for agricultural operations. Counsel also points out that a part of the land is being used as a water body. He submits that without seeking the consent of the villagers, a part of the land in Sy.No.332 is being changed into a burial ground. Learned counsel points out that there is another burial ground existing in the village and he has filed photographs of the same. Relying upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Hinch Lal tiwari v. Kamala Devi, 2001 6 SCC 496, and Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2011 11 SCC 396, the learned counsel argued that these common areas in common lands vest in the Panchayat and that the use of the same cannot be changed unilaterally. He argues that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that all these lands which are used for common purposes should be utilized only by the gram panchayat for the common use and should not be changed. He submits that for decades, the land was being used as a threshing floor/cart track and that changing the same into a burial ground is not called for. He also states that there are legal restrictions on allotment of poramboke lands for other purposes. The objections were also filed by the villagers and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, all these were overlooked since the local MLA wanted the change.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.