PULAMACHETTI RAJESWARAMMA Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following substantial questions of law had been pointed out by the learned Counsel representing the appellant, and the said questions are as hereunder:

(2.) Further, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel representing the appellant that the appellate Court totally erred in arriving at a conclusion that the civil suit itself is not maintainable and yet another substantial question of law has to be decided in addition to the substantial questions of law, on the strength of which the second appeal had been admitted. The counsel would maintain that when the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Grampanchayat Raj Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder had not been complied with, to lay down a broad proposition that under no circumstances the Civil Court can entertain a suit, cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the averments made in the plaint and would submit that inasmuch as the suit was filed complaining the non-compliance of the procedure, the same can be examined by a competent Civil Court. The learned Counsel also, on facts, had pointed out that the Court of first instance recorded acceptable reasons and the Appellate Court without touching several of the factual findings principally recorded a finding relating to the non- maintainability of a suit in a Civil Court and reversed the same. Learned Counsel also relied upon certain decisions in this regard.

(3.) Per contra, Sri M. Ch. Dhananjay, learned Counsel representing respondent-Gram Panchayat, Pathapatnam would maintain that under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, there are remedies available in relation to such assessment and when demand is made, a Civil Court as such cannot entertain a suit in the light of the clear language employed in Sec. 151 of the Act. Learned Counsel also pointed out that there are certain remedies available to challenge such assessment and without exhausting such remedies in the hierarchy, invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impermissible. Even otherwise, learned Counsel would submit that though specifically the plea relating to non- issuance of notice had not been raised, the issuance of notice under Sec. 144 of the Act, prior to institution of the suit, being mandatory, despite the fact that such plea was not specifically raised. This being a pure question of law, respondent-Gram Panchayat may be permitted to raise the said question and on that ground alone the suit is liable to be dismissed and hence, the decree and judgment of the Appellate Court, wherein the decree and judgment of the Court of first instance had been reversed, need not be disturbed in the Second Appeal.