LAWS(APH)-1997-9-124

GRAM PANCHAYAT MADDUR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On September 19, 1997
GRAM PANCHAYAT, MADDUR, REP.BY ITS SARPANCH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., HYDERABAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Gram Panchayat has challenged the G.O.Ms. No.44, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts-III) Department, dated 24-1-1989. By the said order the Government of Andhra Pradesh has directed that the seigniorage fee in respect of minerals from the concerned Gram Panchayat jurisdiction be distributed or apportioned between the Gram Panchayat concerned and the Mandal Praja Parishad at the ratio of 60:40. The petitioner- Gram Panchayat says that the major income of the Gram Panchayat, Madduru is from seigniorage only. Income from lifting of sand was about Rs.60,000/- every year by way of seigniorage. Further, there is no other major source of income for the Gram Panchayat as there is no industry and very little income from property tax. Most of the houses belong to poor persons, who are exempted from paying property tax. The Gram Panchayat was getting 100% seigniorage fee prior to the issuance of the impugned G.O.Ms. The implementation of the impugned G.O.Ms. will deprive the petitioner of its major source of income. Section 79 of the A.P. Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is relied upon by the petitioner for its contention that it has a statutory right for claiming the whole seigniorage fee without any apportionment or sharing. It is therefore, contended that the Government has acted unjustly and in violation of the provisions of the Act in issuing the impugned G.O.Ms. The petitioner has therefore, prayed that the impugned G.O.Ms, be quashed and position which existed prior to the issuance of the impugned G.O.Ms, be restored so as to enable the petitioner- Gram Panchayat to receive all the seigniorage income.

(2.) Interim directions were given on 20-6-1989 ordering Status quo as it existed on the date of passing of the order.

(3.) We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has relied on the provision of Section 79 of the Act. Section 79 so far as is relevant for our purpose is as follows:-