THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 19012 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner Grampanchayat was having a large area of operation. In the year 1963, the 5th respondent Grampanchayat was carved out of it, to the extent it is covered by Survey Nos.147 to 231, 332 to 378 and 380. Some portion of the registration fee and stamp duty on transactions, in relation to the lands within the Grampanchayat, are required to be passed on to the concerned Grampanchayat. The 5th respondent submitted a representation dated 10.1.2007, to the Joint Collector, East Godavari District, with a prayer to ensure that the corresponding share on the transactions relating to the lands in the survey numbers mentioned above, is passed on to it. On an endorsement made by him, the District Panchayat Oﬃcer, the 2 nd respondent herein, issued proceedings dated 31.7.2008, addressed to the District Registrar, Kakinada, the 3rd respondent herein, with a request that the land revenue, or other amounts, payable on the transactions, in relation to the land in Sy.Nos.147 to 231, 332 to 378 and 380 of Pandur Revenue Village, be made over or extended to the 5th respondent Grampanchayat. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said proceedings. Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that any dispute, between the two Gram Panchayats, has to be adjudicated, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 273 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act (for short “the Act”), and such a course was not adopted in the instant case. He submits that the 2nd respondent is not conferred with the power to resolve any dispute, and the impugned proceedings are without any jurisdiction. He further submits that no notice was issued to the petitioner Grampanchayat, before passing the impugned order. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, on the other hand, submits that the lands in the survey numbers mentioned above, are undisputedly in the area of operation of the 5th respondent Grampanchayat, and the petitioner never made any claim vis-à-vis said lands. He contends that the impugned proceedings do not suﬀer from any factual or legal infirmity. It is no doubt true that Section 273 of the Act, prescribes the procedure for resolution of disputes between two Grampanchayats, arising under the said Act, or under any other enactment. The necessity to invoke Section 273 would have arisen, if only there existed any dispute between the petitioner and 5th respondent. Dispute, by its very nature, presupposes the assertion of claim by one, and denial by the other, as to the basic facts. The basic facts, in the instant, case are the revenue and other charges payable vis-à-vis lands in Sy.Nos.147 to 231, 332 to 378 and 380. The petitioner does not dispute that the said lands are within the area of operation of the 5th respondent. No other basis is pleaded by the petitioner, to claim the revenue and other beneﬁts, vis-à-vis the said lands. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any dispute, as regards sharing of the revenue, in respect of the survey numbers, referred to above. In that view of the matter, the occasion to invoke Section 273 of the Act, does not arise. Even otherwise, the petitioner can be said to have suﬀered any grievance, if only any right vested in it, was taken away by the 2nd respondent. When the petitioner does not have right to claim any beneﬁt, in respect of the said lands, it cannot complain of violation of principles of natural justice, or any other lapses. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ 4th September 2008 PAN