THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31585 of 2010 Date:08.02.2011 Between: Kusampudi Satyavathi and others ..... Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the District Collector, Eluru and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri S. Subba Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri G. Elisha, standing counsel for Gram Panchayats Counsel for Respondent No.3: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition filed for a mandamus to set aside the notice dated 03.12.2010 issued by respondent No.2. The petitioners pleaded that they are the owners of Ac.0.06 cents in survey No.256/11 of Uradallapalem village, Attili Mandal, West Godavari District. They have further pleaded that their ancestors have constructed a shed and used to reside therein and that a part of the shed is extended to survey No.257 also. It is also their case that after constructing a pucca house opposite to the shed, they are keeping the agricultural tools and also tethering cattle in that place. The petitioners have felt aggrieved by notice dated 03.12.2010 issued by respondent No.2, wherein it is stated that they are in unauthorized occupation of a shed in R.S.No.256 which belongs to the Gram Panchayat, that the said site is needed for construction of a building for Anganwadi centre and that the petitioners were called upon to remove the said shed within a period of seven days, failing will appropriate action will be taken. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Panchayat Secretary - respondent No.2 , it is inter alia stated that a notice was issued stating that the petitioners were in occupation of a shed on the site which belongs to the Gram Panchayat and which is required for construction of Anganwadi building. It is further averred that the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat and therefore, the said notice has been issued. At the hearing, Sri S. Subba Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted and I find merit in the same that respondent No.2 has come out with a varied version in his counter-affidavit as against the contents of the impugned notice. In the impugned notice, respondent No.2 has mentioned survey No.256. However, he has asserted in his counter-affidavit that a notice was issued in respect of survey No.257. This is an utterly false statement coming from respondent No.2, who is a public servant. This conduct of respondent No.2 in making a deliberately false statement is reprehensible. Wherever R.S.No. is mentioned in the counter-affidavit, they are found corrected by writing ‘7’ after the figure ‘25’. There is thus an obvious attempt on the part of respondent No.2 to camouflage his action by seeking to sustain the impugned notice on realizing that the land in survey No.256 belongs to the petitioners. As the impugned notice pertains to survey No.256 and the counter-affidavit asserts that the petitioners are in possession of Gramakantham land in survey No.257, no action on the basis of the impugned notice can be taken against the petitioners. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned notice dated 03.12.2010 of respondent No.2 is quashed. Though serious action for the misdemeanor on the part of respondent No.2 is warranted, taking a lenient view, respondent No.2 is let off by imposing costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to the petitioners. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order dated 15.12.2010 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.40170 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.468 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th February, 2011 GHN