J NAGESWARA RAO Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER GRAM PGNCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of 412 square feet of land comprised in Survey No.144 and he has been in possession of the said land, having purchased the same by a registered sale deed, dated 5-5-1992, from the original owner. The petitioner, with an intention to put up a shop in the said land, wanted to file an application on 12-7-1994 before the respondent- Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Sattupalli in Khammam district. It is alleged that the petitioner went to the Office of the respondent-Executive Officer on 12-7-1994 with the application enclosing thereto the plan as per the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Building Rules, 1972, which Rules are shortly hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. It is alleged that, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the respondent-Executive Officer refused to receive the application of the petitioner and the plan, and that forced him to send the application enclosing the plan "by Registered Post, Acknowledgment due, to the ,., respondent-Executive Officer on 16-7-1994. The said cover has been returned to the petitioner witha postal endorsement 'refused'. The petitioner has produced the returned cover with the aforementioned postal endorsement along with a memo in this case. Thereafterwards, the petitioner, taking advantage of the deeming provision provided under Rule 12 of the Rules, claims to have constructed the shop in the land in question. At that stage it is alleged that the Executive Officer started interfering with the petitioner's possession of the property and threatened him to demolish the construction put up by the petitioner. Under those circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition in this Court on 7-10-1994.

(2.) This Court on 24-10-1994 directed notice to the respondent before admission. The respondent was served with the notice on 29-10-1994. Despite service of notice, the respondent remains un-represented. The learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj submits that he has no instructions to represent the respondent-Executive Officer.

(3.) Even ignoring the averments made by the petitioner that he attempted to file an application on 12-7-1994 and the same was refused to be received by the respondent-Executive Officer, it is quite clear on record that the petitioner sent the application along-with the plan by Registered Post, Acknowledgement due to the Executive Officer on 16-7-1994 and the said cover has been returned to the petitioner with a postal endorsement 'refused'. Therefore, it should be held that the respondent-Executive Officer has deliberately refused to receive the application and the plan sent by the petitioner by Registered Post on 16-7-1994. Consequently, it should also be held that the petitioner has fulfilled the requirement of making an application enclosing the plan as required under Rule 9 of the Rules. In order to appreciate the contentions raised in mis Writ Petition, it is necessary to refer to Rules, 9,11 and 12 of the Rules, which read thus:-