B CHURCHIL BABU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the electoral roll of the 14th ward of Narasaraopet Municipality as illegal and void and the same is, therefore, be set aside.

(2.) Narasaraopet Municipality was constituted in the year 1915. The last election for (he council took place in 1959. Narasaraopet Municipality is surrounded by Villages on all sides within a short distance of two to three K. Ms. Lingamguntla is one such village on the western side of Narasaraopet on the way to Rompicherla. Lingamguntla was having Gram Panchayat with 12 wards. The petitioners contend that ward Nos 9, 10, 11 and 12 are stretching to the close proximity of Narasaraopet Municipal limits due to growth of population and houses, while the 14th ward of Narasaraopet Municipality is extending in the direction of Lingamguntla Village leaving a very short distance between the two places. They also contend that in case any survey of area is conducted it would be seen that these places are one and the same. They also contend that the roads, street lights in wad Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 are under the management of Gram Panchayat of Lingamguntla and the Panchayat is collecting property tax and other taxes, licence fees etc., from the residents of these wards. They therefore, contend that the houses and the residents of the ward Nos 9 to 12 are within the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat of Lingamguntla. In these four wards of Lingamguntla Gram Panchayat there are about 3000 houses. Though the Special Officer, Narasaraopet Municipality has no jurisdiction over the Gram Panchayat Lingamguntla or over these four wards of Lingamguntla, the petitioners contend that he is attempting to provide all amenities for the residents of these four wards ignoring the statutory provisions of the Municipalities Act. The Panchayat elections for the Lingamguntla village were held in June, 1981. and the elections for the Narasaraopet Municipality were also notified, Electcral rolls of the Gram Panchayat were prepared and carried out as laid down under Section 14(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act. The petitioners contend that the electoral rolls for the Municipality were prepared and in doing so the Special Officer added as many names in each of the houses in ward Nos. 14 and 15 of the Municipal electoral rolls as he could, though many of them are not the residents of ward Nos. 14 and 15 that in the recent elections held for the Lingamguntla Panchayat, the residents of ward Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 exercised their franchise in accordance with the electoral rolls prepared and published under the Gram Panchayats Act, and that the names of 800 persons belonging to ward Nos. 9 to 12 of Lingamguntla, who exercised their franchise in the recent elections of Panchayat, are also included in the electoral rolls of ward No. 14 of Narasaraopet Municipality. The petitioners further contend that inasmuch as 800 names of ward Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Lingamguntla Village were included in the electoral rolls prepared for the 14th ward of Narasaraopet Municipality, the electoral rolls for ward No. 14 of Natasaraopet Municipality were prepared against the rules and hence the election to be conducted for 14th ward on the basis of such illegal electoral rolls becomes illegal. The petitioners, therefore, filed the writ petition seeking for a declaration of the electoral rolls for 14th ward of Narasaraopet Municipality as illegal and void.

(3.) Opposing the writ petition, the 5th respondent Special Officer- cum-Commissioner of Narasaraopet Municipality filed the counter. In the counter he states that the Notification for the constitution of the Narasaraopet Municipality was issued in the year 1915 and it clearly shows the specific boundaries mentioned in the plan attached to the notification. Plan and the Notification make it clear that a portion of Lingamguntla Agraharam forms part of Narasaraopet Municipality and that part was included in the Municipality and continued to be part of the Municipality ever since than. The Panchayat was constituted for Lingamguntla village in the year 1932. But the panchayat covers the area excluding the area already included in the Municipality. So the area in dispute has never formed part of Lingamguntla Gram Panchayat and the question of adopting any procedure under the Panchayats Act to exclude that area from the Panchayat and to include it in the Municipality does not arise. The disputed area has always been in the possession of the Municipality and the Municipality has been exercising control and jurisdiction over it and administering the same as part of the Municipality and the Municipality only has been collecting the taxes from the residents of the disputed area. It is further contended that the voters in that area now in dispute are always known in the electoral roll of the Municipality and they were exercising their franchise in the elections of 'the Municipality. It is further contended that the Lingamguntla Panchayat with a sinister motive and contrary to the actual state of affairs and the provisions of law might have shown some of the voters in this disputed area in the electoral roll of the Panchayat. But that will not make the area part cf the Panchayat or disentitle the voters therein from casting their votes in the elections for the Municipality, The area forms part of the Municipality and the voters therein are ordinary residents within the Munici pality and ere enrolled as voters in the Municipality. It is also contended that the procedure for enrolling the voters has been duly followed. Publication was made at every stage as required by the rules and representations were called for and no objections for including the voters in this area in the electoral roll of the Municipality were ever received. He also denies the petitioners plea that the representations were received opposing the same. The plans of Narasaraopet Municipality were prepared under the authority by law and public documents were prepared much earlier to the constitution of the Panchayat and they clearly show the area now disputed is within the boundaries of the Municipality It is further stated that some people in the panchayat filed a suit in O S.No. 302 of 1969 in a representative capacity contending that the area in dispute forms part of the panchayat. But this contention was rejected by the learned District Munsif and the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, the Panchayat filed a W.P No. 2094 of 1976 and the Municipality contested the same. This Court discosed of the writ petition on 26-8-77 holding that the dispute raised by the Panchayat can be decided only by a Civil Court after considering evidence that may be let in and the Panechayat was directed to go to a Civil Court to establish its claim, if it has got any right to claim the disputed area. But inspite of the direction, the Panchaya t did not file the suit immediately but waited for four years and filed the suit O.S.No. 152 of 1980 only after the notification for elections for the Municipality was issued. In this suit the Panchayat filed I A.Nos. 1304 and 1390 of 1981. But the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed these interlocutory petitions. It is after the Interlocutory applications were dismissed that the petitioners filed this writ petition. He also contends that it is the Municipality that is providing the amenities and controlling the area. It is further contended that the Municipality has followed the procedure in the preparation of the electroal rolls and the voters in the disputed area are enrolled in the electoral roils of the Municipality. Merely because the Panchayat has manipuleted some electoral rolls contrary to the actual state of affairs and the rules and because of such voters have voted In the Panchayat elections it does not prevent the Municipality from enrolling the persons in the area of the Municipality as voters in the Municipal electoral rolls or their right to cast their votes in the Municipal elections. Merely because the voters of the disputed area were included in the panchayat electoral rolls it will not be a ground for denying the voting right to those people in the Municipal elections when they are duly enrolled as voters in the Municipal electoral rolls. It is also contended that the candidates who were contesting the elections will be at liberty to approach the election Tribunal, if any voter outside the area attempts to vote in the Municipal Elections for this ward.