KUSUME SUBBA RAJU Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by a group of petitioners for a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with their possession of the lands situated in Sy.Nos.217/5,6,7 and 224. The petitioners claim to be the owners of land in these four survey numbers which they acquired through registered sale deeds. According to the petitioners, the lands in Sy.Nos.217/5,6,7 is shown as "Nivasa Gruhalu/residential houses" and there is no serious dispute about the same. The land in Sy.No.224 of Kontheru Village, Elamanchili Mandal, West Godavari District is shown as Grama Kantam. It is argued that the land is classified as Grama Kantam and as the petitioners have legal title to the same, they cannot be forcefully evicted nor can their possession be interfered.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri P.Roy Reddy argued that the petitioners have clear title through registered sale deeds in their favour. He points out that the existence of the sale deeds etc., is not disputed by the respondents. According to him, from a reading of the counter affidavit, the only issue raised is about the land in Sy.No.224 which is classified as Grama Kantam land. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that it is admitted in the counter affidavit that the lands in Sy.Nos.217/5, 6 and 7 are private lands. Therefore, he points out that the only issue raised is about the Grama Kantam land in Sy.No.224. Learned counsel argued the matter at length, submitted a brief written note and also filed a compilation of case laws to support his argument that the respondents do not have any rights in the Grama Kantam land and that it does not vest in the Panchayat at all. He relies upon a number of cases from the State and also from the State of Tamilnadu. He points out that the Grama Kantam has been defined as the name given to certain lands in which houses, huts and structures can be erected. In the State of Andhra Pradesh such lands are classified as Grama Kantam and in the State of Tamilnadu, these lands are classified as Grama Natham. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the definition of Grama Kantam, Grama Natham etc., to support his arguments. He relied upon the judgments of the Madras high Court reported in Palani Ammal Vs. L.Sethurama Aiyangar, 1949 (1) MLJ 290. S.Rangaraja Iyengar v. Achi Kannu Ammal, 1959 (2) MLJ 513. and The Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat vs. Swaminathan, 2004 (2) MLJ 708. and other judgments to support his contention. He also relies upon the judgments from Andhra Pradesh including The State of A.P. vs. Rayi Rangaiah,(1972) APLJ 386. Nagarala Nirvasitula Welfare Association v. Government of A.P.,2012 SCC Online A.P. 114. Voona Bangaraju vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 (4) ALT 238. etc., to support his argument that Grama Kantam land is a land which does not automatically vest with the Government or the Panchayat and that transfer of the lands is permissible. He also draws the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.187 dtd. 27/5/2015, in which Grama Kantam lands are taken out of the purview of sec. 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 which deals with the prohibited list of properties. He points out that the G.O. was issued after the judgment reported in Nagarala Nirvasitula Welfare Association (supra). Therefore, learned counsel argues that this is a fit case in which a writ of Mandamus can be issued as prayed for.

(3.) In reply to this, learned Government Pleader Sri I.Koti Reddy argues that land in Sy.No.224 is a land which is classified as Grama Kantam land. It vests in the Kontheru Grama Panchayat. He points out that this was wantonly/deliberately included in the sale deeds by the petitioners to grab the land. He also argues on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.187 that the Grama Kantam land vests with the Grama Panchayat and that the Grama Panchayat has a right to allot the land to others for bona fide needs as per the Board Standing Order 21. The contention of the learned counsel, therefore, is that this land cannot be included in a sale deed as the vendor of the petitioners did not have title to the property himself.