MUKKA NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is the non-maintainability of revision before the Government in the matter of bifurcation of a Gram Panchayat at the instance of a private person. Vaddimadugu Gram Panchayat was sought to be bifurcated but in view of the unanimous resolution of the Gram Panchayat opposing it, the Collector, Prakasam District decided against it. A revision before the Government was carried by one G. Raghurami Reddy which was allowed. Writ Petition No. 11430 of 1995, filed assailing the revisional order was allowed on 18-12-1995 directing the Government to give notice to the Gram Panchayat before passing order on the revision petition. The Government, after issue of notice to the Gram Panchayat, again confirmed the bifurcation, challenging which the present writ petition has been filed. The revision petitioner having not been made a party, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead him as the 4th Respondent.

(2.) It is urged before us by the learned Counsel that under Rule 10 of the A.P. Gram Panchayat (Declaration of Village) Rules, 1994 and the G.O.Ms.No.515, Panchayat Raj, Rural Development and Relief (Mandal-I), dated 17-8-1994, it is only the Gram Panchayat which has a right of revision and the Respondent No.4 could not have preferred the revision. Consequently, the order passed on the revision petition is one which must be set aside.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader for Gram Panchayats has brought to our notice the provisions of Section 264 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 which vests power in the Government either suo motu or on application from any person interested, to call for and examine the record of a Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad or a Zilla Parishad or of its Standing Committees or of any authority, officer or person in respect of any proceeding to satisfy themselves as to regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or orders passed therein and, if in any case, it appears to the Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, they may pass orders accordingly. The learned Government Pleader argued that since the Act authorises the revisional powers in the Government to be exercised either suo motu or on the application of any other person, the provision in the Rule 10 of the Rules is superseded by such powers of the Government.