ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. These writ petitions disclose utter disregard to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act by the District Collector, Prakasam District and Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, (R.D.O.) and the gross misuse of power by the latter in bringing about certain fictitious records and proceedings resulting in multiplicity of proceedings before this Court and a Civil Court.
2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 21304 of 2002 is Gram Panchayat of Thimmareddypalem of Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District. An extent of about Acs. 515-00 of land is vested in the Gram Panchayat. The revenue authorities intended to divest the Gram Panchayat of about Acs. 83-00 cents of the said land so as to enable them to assign it to needy persons in the year 1991. The necessary exercise was undertaken under Section 62 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1964.
3. In the year 2001, the RDO, initiated steps for denotification of another Acs.77-00 of land for this purpose. He issued a notice dated 6-4-2001 to the Gram Panchayat to express its views on the proposed denotification. The Gram Panchayat passed resolution on 9-4-2001 refusing to accord its consent for denotification. Despite the same, the RDO passed orders dated 26-5-2001 changing the classification of the land from grazing poramboke to A.W.D. and directing the Mandal Revenue Officer (for short 'the MRO') Lingasamudram to incorporate necessary changes in the concerned revenue accounts.
4. Aggrieved by the orders dated 26-5-2001, the Gram Panchayat filed W.P.No. 11283 of 2001. In the order, the RDO stated that the Gram Panchayat had given its consent. In the counter-affidavit filed by the RDO in the said writ petition, he stated that there did not exist any consent from the Gram Panchayat and what was stated in the order was a mistake. Taking this aspect into account, this Court has allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 26-5-2001.
5. When the Gram Panchayat was facing threat to the possession over the said land, it has filed O.S. No. 257 of 2001 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur for permanent injunction against the defendants impleaded therein. It has also filed I.A. No. 1546 of 2001 under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is stated that through orders dated 5-10-2001, the Trial Court granted temporary injunction. Despite the existence of temporary injunction, the interference is said to have continued. Therefore, the Gram Panchayat had approached the local police authorities for granting help. Since, there was no response, the Gram Panchayat has filed W.P. No. 21304 of 2002.
6. The petitioners in W.P. No. 22668 of 2002 claim that they are in possession of about Acs.45-00 cents of land out of the said poramboke, since last several years. According to them, it was on their request that the RDO has initiated steps for denotification or reclassification of the land. They have filed the writ petition claiming the relief of declaration that Acs.77-15 cents of land in S.Nos. 385 to 391 of Thimmareddypalem Village is not vested in the Gram Panchayat and that the Gram Panchayat has no authority or right to evict the petitioners from the occupation of their respective lands.
7. Sri M. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the root cause for the present series of litigation is the fraud played by the RDO who had deliberately passed the orders dated 26-5-2001 stating that the Gram Panchayat had accorded its consent. He submits that even after the order was set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 11283 of 2001, the interference with the possession of the Gram Panchayat continued. According to him, instead of coming to rescue of the Gram Panchayat, the MRO and RDO started siding with the encroachers. It is also his contention that the order of temporary injunction was rendered ineffective on account of non-co-operation of revenue and police officials.
8. The learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj submits that the District Collector had issued a notification dated 7-6-2001 in exercise of his powers under Section 58 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act') removing the extent of Acs.77-15 cents of land from the purview of the Gram Panchayat. She submits that as long as the said notification is not challenged by the Gram Panchayat or any one, there does not exist any basis for the claim of the Gram Panchayat.
9. Sri T. Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No. 22668 of 2002 submits that his clients are in possession of various extents of land since several years. It was on their request that the Collector issued a notification removing the land from the purview of the Gram Panchayat. He also submits that as long as the notification stands, the Gram Panchayat has no right or claim over the said Ac.77-15 cents of land.
10. It is not in dispute that an extent of Acs.515-00 cents of land in various survey numbers stood vested in the Gram Panchayat. The revenue authorities have taken steps to take away Acs.83-00 cents of land from the purview of the Gram Panchayat in accordance with the relevant provisions of law in force in the year 1991. There is no dispute as to Acs.83-00 cents of land, which is taken away from the purview of the Gram Panchayat.
11. The RDO initiated steps for taking another extent of Acs.77-15 cents of land from the purview of the Gram Panchayat. By this time, the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1995 came into force. The Gram Panchayat asserts that it was issued notice dated 6-4-2001 by the RDO to express its views as regards denotification of Acs.77-15 cents of land and that it had passed a resolution dated 9-4-2001 refusing its consent for such a course of action. Be that as it may, the RDO, passed an order dated 26.5.2001 transferring or denotifying the said land from the purview of the Gram Panchayat. In the said order, he observed as under:
'Notice was published in the village and the same was served on the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat has given its consent. No objections have been received either from the public or from the Gram Panchayat for the proposed conversion within the stipulated time.'
12. This order was challenged by the Gram Panchayat by filing W.P. No. 11283 of 2002. In its order dated 23-1-2003, this Court observed as follows:
'However, the impugned order dated 26-5-2001 has been passed by the 2nd respondent ordering conversion from grazing ground poramboke to A.W.D. for facilitating 'process of assignment'. This proceedings of the 2nd respondent records that the petitioner Gram Panchayat has given its consent and no objection had been received from the public or from the Gram Panchayat for the proposed conversion within the stipulated time. However, as the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 26-5-2001 is based on a clearly erroneous factual basis that consent was given by the petitioner Gram Panchayat, the order beseeches invalidation. It is accordingly set aside.'
13. Thereby, the said order came to be set aside. Even, while the writ petition was pending, the Gram Panchayat filed O.S. No. 257 of 2001 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur in respect of that very land and obtained an order of temporary injunction in I.A. No. 1546 of 2001 on 5-10-2001 against the defendants impleaded therein. The Gram Panchayat complains that despite the interim orders granted by this Court in W.P. No. 11283 of 2002, the interference continued. Therefore, it approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 21304 of 2002.
14. The learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for petitioners in W.P. No. 22668 of 2002 resisted the claim of the Gram Panchayat on the ground that as on today, the said Acs.77-15 cents of land stood converted and it is no longer available with the Gram Panchayat, in view of the notification issued by the District Collector on 7-6-2001. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to how far the said notification would disentitle the Gram Panchayat of its right over the land.
Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 58 of the Act read as under:
1. The following porambokes namely grazing grounds, threshing floors, burning and burial grounds, cattle stands, carts tanks and topes, which are at the disposal of the Government and are not required by them for any specific purpose shall vest in the Gram Panchayat subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed.
2. The Government may, at any time by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, direct that any porambokes referred to in Sub-section (1) shall cease to vest in the Gram Panchayat if it is required by them for any specific purpose and thereupon such porambokes shall vest in the Government.
15. Sub-section (2) enables the Government through a notification to direct that any poramboke referred to Sub-section (1) shall cease to vest the Gram Panchayat.
16. The learned Government Pleader and Sri T. Rajendra Prasad submits a notification dated 7-6-2001 is the one issued under this provision. It is beneficial to reproduce the said notice in its entirety. It reads as under:
'In exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 read with G.O. Ms. No. 647, Panchayat Samithi Department dated 20-11-1975, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District hereby directs that with effect from the date of publication of this notification in A.P. State Gazette the land specified in the schedule below vesting in the Thimmareddypalem Panchayat of Lingasamudram Mandal of Prakasam District be excluded from the control of the said Panchayat.'
17. A reading of this notification discloses that it was issued by the RDO, Kandukur. The Act empowers the Government to issue notification. It is stated that the power was delegated to the District Collector also. The heading of this notification discloses that notification was issued by Collector. There is not even reference to the District Collector. Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act maintains clear definition of Collector and District Collector. The body of the notification discloses that the notification is issued by the RDO, Kandukur and not by the District Collector or Collector. Further, the notification is issued in exercise of power under Section 67 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 1964. This Act stood repealed with the enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Therefore, this notification for all practical purposes is non est and does not lead to any legal consequences.
18. Another aspect, which needs to be noted, is that the order dated 26-5-2001 constituted the basis for issuance of the said notification. The same was challenged in W.P. No. 11283 of 2001. The District Collector and RDO's were parties to the said writ petition. They did not choose to bring to the notice of this Court that a notification dated 7-6-2001 was issued. If at all, any thing, the omission on the part of the then District Collector and RDO discloses lack of regard on their part, to the proceedings before this Court. Their indifference to the provisions of law and their acts and omissions demonstrate the strength of the ulterior forces that prompted them to somehow or the other to deprive the Gram Panchayat of the valuable landed property. Once the Sub-stratum for conversion of the land in the form of order dated 26-5-2001 issued by the RDO was set aside, the subsequent notification, even if it is otherwise valid has no legs to stand. Therefore, viewed from any angle, there does not exist any basis for denial of right of the Gram Panchayat over the said land of Acs.77.15 cents.
19. The allegations of the Gram Panchayat is that instead of coming to its rescue, the RDO and MRO have accorded protection of rights of occupants remains unrebutted. This Court takes serious exception for the utter indifference on the part of the RDO and MRO for their disregard towards the provisions of law and rights of Gram Panchayat. It has already come on record both in these writ petitions as well as in W.P. No. 11283 of 2001, that the RDO had passed orders dated 26-5-2001 by stating utter falsehood and thereby defeating the rights of the Gram Panchayat. If at all, anyone it is the RDO that is responsible for the present state of affairs and this litigation.
20. It needs to be observed that there does not exist any assignment or allotment in favour of the petitioners in W.P. No. 22668 of 2002. The land is indisputably vested in the Gram Panchayat. Even before they are sought to be evicted, the procedure prescribed under Section 98 of the Act has to be followed.
21. Under these circumstances, the WP No. 21304 of 2002 is allowed directing the respondents to accord protection to the Gram Panchayat to preserve its rights over the land of Acs.77-15 cents. WP No. 22668 of 2002 is disposed of directing that the possession of the petitioner over the respective extents of land shall not be disturbed except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 98 of the Act.