THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.20761 of 2009 DATED: 26.04.2010 Between: Smt. P. Vasundhara .. Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Government, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 201.66 square yards in plot No.53 of Sy.No.24/AA situated at Mubaraknagar Gram Panchayat, Nizamabad District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 29.05.1986, for valuable consideration. She states that, after obtaining necessary permission from the Gram Panchayat in the year 1986, she constructed a house in the said plot, which was allotted House No.3- 63, and has been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, it appears, she occupied poramboke land in an extent of 67 square yards (55 feet in length x 11 feet in width) towards north side of her land and the said occupation was regularized by the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Nizamabad, vide proceedings dated 08.07.1999, by collecting an amount of Rs.5,025/- from her. However, on the allegation that she has encroached another 6 feet of land allotted to Pochamma Temple, in addition to the said 67 square yards regularized in her favour, and got constructed a compound wall thereon, the respondent authorities have taken up an enquiry and pursuant to the directions of the 3rd respondent- District Panchayat Officer, members of the 4th respondent Gram Panchayat conducted a meeting on 23.07.2007. Petitioner states that, in the said meeting, majority of members proposed to regularize her occupation of the said 6 feet land on payment of market value, but however, ignoring the same, the 2nd respondent passed orders dated 07.09.2007, whereunder it was directed that the petitioner shall remove the compound wall that was constructed by her by encroaching 6 feet of land belonging to Pochamma Temple, within three days, failing which the same will be removed by the Gram Panchayat. She further states that without the said order dated 07.09.2007 being served on her, the staff of the 4th respondent demolished the compound wall in question on 17.09.2007 at about 11.30 p.m., but however, on the same day at 2.30 p.m., she received the said order. Thereupon, questioning the said order, she preferred a revision before the 1st respondent- Government of A.P. on 24.09.2007, but the same was dismissed on 21.01.2008. She has also approached the Civil Court by filing a suit and obtained interim order of status quo, but however, the same was vacated subsequently, against which she preferred a civil miscellaneous appeal before the appellate authority and the same is pending. While that being so, she submitted a representation dated 24.07.2009 to the 2nd respondent, requesting to regularize her occupation of 6 feet land by collecting market value, by taking into consideration the proposal of majority of the members of the Gram Panchayat in the meeting held on 23.07.2007. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, so far, no orders are passed by the 2nd respondent, pursuant to her representation. She, therefore, seeks to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of her representation dated 24.07.2009 and also to direct the respondent authorities not to dispossess her from the land in question, without any action being taken on her representation. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, the 3rd respondent- District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad, filed a detailed counter-affidavit, denying the allegations made by the petitioner and it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled for regularization of her occupation of the land in question. The 4th respondent- Gram Panchayat also filed counter- affidavit, wherein it is stated that the representation dated 24.07.2009 submitted by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent-District Collector was referred to the 3rd respondent for necessary action and pursuant thereto the 3rd respondent requested the Divisional Panchayat Officer to enquire into the matter and, ultimately, by proceedings dated 22.08.2009, rejected her claim and suggested her to agitate her rights before the Civil Court where the suit filed by her is pending. However, today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that it is the 2nd respondent-District Collector who has to pass orders on the representation dated 24.07.2009 submitted by the petitioner, but not the 3rd respondent, and therefore it will be appropriate to issue directions to the 2nd respondent for disposal of the said representation, for which the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj reported no objection. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on merits, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 24.07.2009 made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as per law, as expeditiously as possible. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 26th April, 2010 IBL