PORANKI SRIDHAR RAJU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D. Panduranga Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri D.V. Sitharama Murthy, learned senior counsel and Sri N. Ashwain Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. The petitioners challenge the proceedings of the 1st respondent in G.O. Rt. No. 1500 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts. III) Department, dated 05-10-2010, by which the 1st respondent accorded permission to the District Collector, Krishna for alienation of Ac. 0.15 cents of common vacant land of Gram Panchayat, Kanur along with the Mandir therein to the 4th respondent herein on payment of market value prevailing in 1997 as a special case in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 215 and G.O. Ms. No. 323 dated 25-06-2001 and 23-10-2001 respectively.

(2.) The petitioners are residents of Srinivasa Nagar colony and adjacent colonies of Kanur village and the original owner of R.S. No. 245/2 got the approved layout from the Urban Development Authority in L.P. No. 37 of 1984, in pursuance of which the colony came up. An extent of Ac. 0.35 cents in the layout was earmarked for public purpose, which was gifted by the land owners to the Gram Panchayat. The 4th respondent appeared to have made an application to the Gram Panchayat for allotting a plot of Ac. 0.15 cents in the said extent of Ac. 0.35 cents and the Gram Panchayat resolved to make that allotment by resolution No. 585 dated 11-02-1997 for construction of Gita Mandir. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj rejected the request of the Panchayat for such permission and later he required the local market value to be ascertained from the Mandal Revenue Officer and to be submitted along with the bye-laws of the society. While so, the District Collector directed on 11-06-2007 that the Gram Panchayat shall take over the unauthorized and illegal construction in that land, against which the 4th respondent filed an appeal before the Government, which passed an order in Memo dated 01-10-2007 finding that the construction of Sri Sai Gita Mandir was in the land vested in the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat is not competent to alienate or transfer such property even for charitable purpose unless such transfer of property is approved by the Council of Ministers as required by G.O.Ms. No. 215 and G.O.Ms. No. 323. When the 4th respondent filed W.P. No. 21586 of 2007, it was dismissed for want of mention of any legal basis for the claim and the resumption of the property through the order of the 2nd respondent was held to suffer no infirmity. The 2nd respondent also issued a show-cause notice to the then Sarpanch for encouraging the unauthorized construction and the Gram Panchayat took over possession of the temple on 05-11-2007. The maintenance of Sri Sai Gita Mandir was directed by the 2nd respondent to be governed by the working instructions issued in the proceedings dated 28-05-2008. In pursuance of the same, the Gram Panchayat appointed a body of seven members, including the wife of the 1st petitioner herein. When the temple was being managed by the Committee, it became popular and the petitioners are regular visitors to the temple being interested in its welfare. While so, the impugned Government Orders were issued, which could not have been issued, as the Government rejected the request earlier on merits, which rejection was upheld by this Court in W.P. No. 21586 of 2007. When the Government has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, it cannot entertain the very same issue at the instance of an MLA and the power to alienate, even if it exists with the Government, has to be exercised fairly, reasonably and in public interest. Rule 3(2) of the Statutory Rules of 2001 provides for such alienation only to private institutions/associations/individuals of great reputation and charitable in nature in deserving cases, which proposal shall be placed before the Cabinet for decision. As the 4th respondent does not satisfy any of the conditions for alienation, the impugned order not specifying any reasons even for not fixing the market value as on the date of the encroachment, cannot be sustained. The writ petitioners, therefore, desire the proposed alienation to be declared illegal.

(3.) The 1st respondent in the counter-affidavit through its Joint Secretary stated that the construction of Sri Sai Gita Mandir was completed during the pendency of the proposal before the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj/Government and in accordance with the rules governing acquisition and transfer of property by the Gram Panchayat etc., under G.O.Ms. No. 215 dated 25-06-2001, the power of alienation or transfer shall be, of course, to private institutions/associations/individuals of great reputation and charitable in nature in deserving cases. The 1st respondent claimed that the 4th respondent again filed an application after the dismissal of its writ petition through local Legislator and the file was circulated up to the Chief Minister who agreed for the proposal in principle in accordance with the rules. In the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 20-09-2010, considering that the temple was already constructed and poojas and other rituals were going on, the Cabinet approved the proposal, on which the impugned G.O. was issued. The orders in G.O. Rt. No. 1500 are in accordance with the prescribed procedure and hence, the writ is requested to be dismissed.