THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR A.S. No. 3602 of 2003 Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2003 passed in O.S. No.253 of 1997 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad East and North, R.R. District., at L.B. Nagar. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs before the lower Court. They filed the suit seeking a declaration that the notice dated 03.08.1996 issued by the first defendant as null and void and not binding on them and consequently to grant injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and employees from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and to award costs of the suit. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the lower Court for the sake of convenience. Though originally suit was filed against the first defendant, but subsequently defendants 2 to 4 were impleaded. The first defendant is the Executive Officer, Grampanchayat, Gaddiannaram, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District, the second defendant is Sriramnagar Colony represented by its General Secretary M. Janakiram, the third defendant is M. Loknath and fourth defendant is Gaddiannaram Municipality, represented by its Commissioner (the Grampanchayat Gaddiannaram became Municipality in the year 2000). The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows. The suit schedule property is shown as land admeasuring 9000 sq. meters forming part of Sy.Nos.109, 110 and 111, of Gaddiannaram village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District, bounded by North: National Highway, South: Nala, East: Road and West: Neighbours property. As far as the individual plots purchased by the plaintiffs total extent of 6625 sq. meters are concerned there is no dispute. The main dispute is with regard to land covered by roads and open place admeasuring 1900 sq. meters, out of the total land of 9000 sq. meters shown as suit schedule land. The suit land originally belonged to one Smt. Hussaini Begum and others. They obtained a layout sanctioned for the entire area of land admeasuring Ac.18-00 gts., in Sy.Nos.109, 110 and 111 from the first defendant- Grampanchayat. There are 15 plots towards southern side of National Highway leading from Hyderabad to Vijayawada. The remaining plots are towards northern side of the National Highway. Plot Nos.127 and 141 are in the layout towards southern side of the National Highway. There is triangle shape open place in middle and around that triangle shape 25 feet width road is there which connects the National Highway. Thus, plot Nos.127 and 128 are divided by this road connecting the National Highway. Plaintiff No.1 has purchased plot Nos.131 and 132, plaintiff Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, father of plaintiff No.6, and plaintiff No.7 have purchased plot Nos.129, 130, 133, 134, 128, 136, 135, 138 and 140 respectively. Plaintiff No.8 has also purchased plot Nos.137 and 139 vide separate sale deeds. The plaintiffs specific case is that the the original owners had left road and open area of about 1900 sq. meters for the exclusive use and enjoyment of these plot owners and there is no other thoroughfare or exist to other lands or other plots of the adjoining lands. All the plaintiffs are closely related and they have purchased the plots for the purpose of starting saw-mills and timber depots in the said land. Accordingly, they approached the Grampanchayat, Saroornagar and submitted an application to transfer the above referred road area and open place vested with the Grampanchayat to them. Though initially the Grampanchayat had objected for including the road area and open place within the compound, but subsequently considered their application since the road and open place is exclusively left for their use and enjoyment and no other persons have access to the said property. The Grampanchayat, vide resolution dated 29.07.1977 resolved to allot the said land to the plaintiffs on payment of land value estimated at total sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- and, accordingly, intimated the plaintiffs while enclosing the copy of resolution and in pursuant to the said sanction the plaintiffs have paid Rs.20,000/- on 09.08.1977. After the receipt of said amount, the Grampanchayat has sanctioned permission for construction of compound wall in the entire area of plot Nos.128 to 140 together with road open place on 09.08.1977. On the basis of the said permission, the plaintiffs have constructed common compound wall for the entire area and thereafter they have obtained separate permissions for construction of sheds, offices, installation of machinery etc., vide permit Nos.587, dated 16.08.1977, No.134, dated 05.10.1978, No.336, dated 30.11.1978 and No.11189/79, dated 04.01.1979 and constructed sheds, building, installed saw mills and carrying on timber depot business. The Grampanchayat allotted numbers to all the sheds in the plot Nos.128 to 140 with house Nos.8-76-1 to 13 on 18.12.1975 and 24.12.1975, and subsequently renumbered the said property vide GP Nos.23-3, 23- 3/2, 23-5, 23-3/1/2, 23-10, 23-11, 23-12 to 15, 23-11/7, 23-11/2, 23- 11/3 and 23-11/4 and the Grampanchayat has been collecting taxes from the plaintiff. The plaintiffs further case is that though they are in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the said properties since last 20 years the Grampanchayat, Gaddiannaram has issued a notice on 03.08.1996 alleging that by constructing compound wall to the road the plot owners in Sy.Nos.109, 110 and 111 have occupied the road and open place and called upon them to remove the gate and illegal constructions within seven (7) days. In reply to the said notice, the plaintiffs have submitted explanation on 13.08.1986 explaining the above facts and submitted copies of documents as desired by the first defendant-Grampanchayat. Again the first defendant issued a notice on 21.12.1996 reiterating its contentions and then the plaintiffs gave reply on 27.12.1996. Another notice was issued by the Grampanchayat on 09.01.1997 and the plaintiffs gave reply on 10.01.1997 reiterating their stand and intimating that already they have submitted the required documents. Again defendant No.1 has issued notice on 03.08.1996, which is under challenge in the present suit. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiffs is that at their request the Grampanchayat sold the said area to them by taking market value and that they have obtained necessary permissions and constructed structures in the said land and now the first defendant has issued notice with a mala fide intention to harass the plaintiffs and therefore no statutory notice is required. Alleging that the defendants may dispossess them at any time the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking a declaration that the notice dated 03.08.1996 issued by defendant No.1 is null and void and not binding on them and to grant injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit schedule land. The first defendant filed a written statement denying the material averments made by the plaintiffs. The first defendant’s main case is that at the time of obtaining lay out the original owners have left common area towards roads and parks in the said survey numbers for the common use of the colony people as it is mandatory at the time of making a layout. The roads and parks are public property and the Grampanchayat has to maintain the same and it has no power to alienate the said property left for public purpose in the layout. The first defendant’s further case is that the contention of the plaintiff that the road and open place i.e., common area was left only for the use and enjoyment of the plaintiffs is absolutely false and incorrect. It is also denied that the Grampanchayat allotted the land left for roads and parks to them on payment of Rs.20,000/-, vide resolution dated 29.07.1977 or that the plaintiffs have paid Rs.20,000/- on 09.08.1977 and it is the sale consideration of the land left for roads and parks. It is also denied that the Grampanchayat granted permission to construct sheds, buildings for installation of saw mill on the land left for roads and parks. It is also denied that the plaintiffs have constructed sheds and buildings about 20 years back. Issuing of notice on 03.08.1996 has been admitted. The first defendant’s specific case is that they issued notice asking the plaintiffs to remove the gates fixed at the entrance of the road and constructions made over the road and the open place left for the park. The first defendant admitted that the plaintiffs gave reply in writing on 13.08.1996 contending that they have purchased the land left for roads and parks by the Grampanchayat and paid Rs.20,000/- to the Grampanchayat but its further case is that when they asked the plaintiffs to produce the documents showing the sale transaction by issuing a notice dated 21.12.1996 the plaintiffs failed to produce the documents and therefore they issued another notice on 09.01.1997 and that in spite of said notices the plaintiffs have not produced any valid document and they are dragging on the matter on one pretext or the other without removing the gate constructed on the road entrance and the sheds erected on the road and public park in the place meant for public. It is also their case that the District Collector also issued proceedings directing the defendants to demolish the unauthorized structures made by the plaintiffs on the open land. It is also their contention that if the value of the property agreed to be transferred exceeds Rs.10,000/- prior sanction of the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj is required. The defendants 2 and 3 have also filed separate written statements and they have also taken almost same pleas as taken by the first defendant. The second defendant also contended that the owners of plot Nos.128 and 141 have not joined the plaintiffs and therefore the plaintiffs have no right to take the benefits for themselves and they are liable to pay compensation to the Grampanchayat for wrongful use of the land pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum for the wrongful use of the land and that the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Thus, the specific case of the defendants 2 and 3 is that 1900 sq. meters of the land left for roads and park is for the benefit of the public at large including the second defendant’s association and also other people and that the constructions made by the plaintiffs are illegal. It is also their case that the so called resolution dated 29.07.1977 said to have been passed by the Grampanchayat has no value in the eye of law when it was passed without prior sanction of the State Government as well as the officers concerned. It is also their case that the payment of Rs.20,000/- on 09.08.1977 by the plaintiffs is towards fund for Grampanchayat and not a consideration for the park area or for the common roads. The contention of the plaintiffs that they are in possession since 20 years is specifically denied by these defendants. It is also their contention that mere suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. The third defendant has also specifically averred that the total land purchased by the plaintiffs from plot Nos.128 to 140 may come to around 6000 sq. meters and the remaining land has been left for the benefit of the colony people for the park as well as common roads around the park. It is also contended that the Grampanchayat has no authority to alienate the said property. The third defendant has also alleged that the plaintiffs have encroached his land to an extent of 958.66 sq. yards for which a civil suit in O.S. No.191 of 1999 is pending on the file of the Principal District Judge, R.R. District. It is also their contention that in view of the pendency of the proceedings, the third defendant is unable to recover the land encroached by the plaintiffs. Based on the above pleadings, the lower Court framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the notice dated 03.08.1996 issued by the defendant is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are owners and possessors of the suit schedule land? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? 4. To what relief. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff has been examined as PW.1 and PWs.2 and 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A46 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, the Commissioner of Gaddiannaram Municipality has been examined as DW.1 and DWs.2 and 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B10 were marked. The trial Court, on appreciation of the entire material and evidence, held that no document has been filed by the plaintiffs to show that the previous sanction of the District Collector was obtained by the Grampanchayat before passing the resolution, permitting the plaintiffs to use the suit property which is a mandatory requirement. Similarly, held that no sanction of the Panchayat Raj Commissioner was obtained though the value of the property exceeds Rs.10,000/- and, therefore, the sale in favour of the plaintiffs is not in accordance with law and the possession of the plaintiffs over the area covered by the road and vacant site earmarked for public purpose in the layout is not lawful. The lower Court further held that it is not the case of the plaintiffs that the Grampanchayat is trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the plots bearing Nos.128 to 140 and therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for and, accordingly, the lower Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the open land and the road surrounded by the houses of the plaintiffs were left for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and that no other person has any access to that area and it is not useful to any other person and the owners of other two plots bearing Nos.127 and 141 have given their written consent supporting the case of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs have paid the sale consideration as per the resolution of the Grampanchayat and thereafter the Grampanchayat has granted them the required permissions for construction of sheds and saw mills and accordingly the plaintiffs have constructed the compound wall and therefore now the Grampanchayat is not justified in issuing the impugned notice. Her main submission is that once the sale consideration has been paid to the first defendant it looses its right over the property. It is also her submission that the plaintiffs have purchased their individual plots @ Rs.15/- per sq. meter whereas the rate paid to the first defendant is more than Rs.20/- per sq. meter. It is also her submission that defendants 2 and 3 have no concern with the suit land and their houses are no way near the suit land and that the second defendant earlier filed O.S. No.191 of 1999 for declaration of title and the said suit was dismissed and subsequently the said judgment has been confirmed by this Court and the said land is with regard to some other property and in view of the earlier litigation the second defendant bore grudge against the plaintiffs and got impleaded as party to the present suit to harass the plaintiffs. It is also her submission that the Executive Officer who is representing the Grampanchayat has categorically informed the plaintiffs that the Grampanchayat passed a resolution in Ex.A25 directing the plaintiffs to pay Rs.20,000/- in lieu of the compensation of the land and accordingly the plaintiffs have paid the amount under Ex.A23. Her main submission is that once the Grampanchayat has not disputed its resolution in Ex.A25 and also receipt of amount under Ex.A23 the Grampanchayat is estopped from saying that the open land is not alienated to the plaintiffs. It is also her submission that as far as the land vested in Grampanchayat is concerned, Rule 2 of Srl.No.84, Rules relating to acquisition and transfer of property by Gram Panchayats (G.O. Ms. No.53, P.R., dated 02.02.1966) of A.P. Gram Panchayats Manual, apply and, therefore, there is no need to obtain the permission of the District Collector since the land does not belong to the Government and it is only vested in Grampanchayat. Her submission is that Rule 3 applies when the land belonged to the Grampanchayat is sought to be alienated. Thus her submission is that no previous sanction of the Government is necessary if the case is covered by Rule 2. It is also her submission that the Grampanchayat has sanctioned licence for running the timber depot in Ex.A35 and also sanctioned layout for erecting the saw mill and the dispute arose when one Mohd. Yacoob made a representation to the District Panchayat Officer claiming right in the open land and his request was rightly rejected by the authorities. It is also her submission that the principle of promissory estoppel would apply in this case since public authorities are bound by the said principle. She has also submitted that the plaintiffs have been in peaceful and uninterrupted possession since last 30 years. She has also referred to the letter written by the District Panchayat Officer in Ex.B2, wherein it is admitted that there is a timber depot in the open land and it is under the occupation of the plaintiffs since more than 20 to 25 years. It is also her submission that all the required sanctions for construction were obtained from the Grampanchayat under various sanction orders. It is also her submission that in the sanctioned layout the land in dispute is shown as open land and nowhere it is shown as park. Her main submission is that the Grampanchayat has sold the land and granted permission and the plaintiffs have acted upon the resolution of the Grampanchayat and therefore the Grampanchayat is bound by the principle of promissory estoppel. In support of her contentions she has relied on the following decisions. State of Bihar and others Vs. Kalyanpur Cement Limited[1], Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited Vs. State of Kerala and others[2], LML Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others and Batch[3], U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Vs. Sant Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd[4], Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd., Vs. Electricity Inspector and ETIO[5], M/s. Vij Resins Pvt. Ltd., and another Vs. State of J. and K. and others[6], Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Asst.), Dharwar and others Vs. Dharmendra Trading Co. etc[7], Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., v. Union of India[8], M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., v. The State of U.P[9], The Union of India v. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies[10], Veeraswami v. Durga Venkata Subbarao[11], Ghulam Qadir v. Ghulam Hussain[12], Kalu Chand v. State of Rajasthan[13], M.A. Raju v. Annaiah[14], Onkar Hage v. Shamrao Shivrao Palhade[15], Anokh Singh v. State of Punjab and others[16], Steel Crakers v. MSTC and another[17], Garments International Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India[18], Rameshwar Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar[19], Sarwarlal v. State of Hyderabad[20], Nadimpalli Venkataraju v. Ravipadu Panchayat Board, by President[21], Smt. P. Mangamma v. The Women’s Co-operative Housing Society Ltd[22] and Gudepu Sailoo v. Government of AP., rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department[23]. Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, submitted that the plaintiffs are mainly relying on the resolution passed by the Grampanchayat, however there is no recital in the said resolution proposing to sell the property to the plaintiffs and the words used are very clear and even if the resolution is accepted as true, the words used in that resolution are very clear. The words used are ‘if you use’, that means the plaintiffs can utilize, but they cannot get any absolute right. His main submission is that there is no recital to transfer the vacant land meant for public park. It is also his contention that the plaintiffs had submitted an application seeking permission to construct a compound wall around their plots and accordingly the Grampanchayat permitted them to construct compound wall. His further submission is that the mere permission to construct compound wall would not automatically give them any right in the vacant land or on the roads laid in the land vested to the Grampanchayat. It is also submitted that that since the plaintiffs are claiming property the burden lies on them and the receipt filed by them itself shows that they have paid donation of Rs.20,000/- to the Grampanchayat and donation cannot be treated as a consideration amount and even if the word is used in lieu of compensation of land that cannot be termed as sale consideration. It is further argued that even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the Grampanchayat has agreed to alienate the property, but admittedly the defendants have not taken any steps to get a regular sale deed and had they demanded for regular sale deed, then the question of ratifying the resolution passed by the Grampanchayat would have been placed before the authority concerned. It is also submitted that PW.2 has categorically admitted that Ex.A25 resolution does not show that they were selling the suit land to the plaintiffs. His main submission is that the plaintiffs taking advantage of permission to construct a compound wall unauthorisedly occupied the vacant land which is surrounded by public road and when they are in unauthorized occupation under Section 108 of the Grampanchayat Act, the Grampanchayat has every right to collect compensation, but that would not give any right to the unauthorized encroachers. It is also argued that the plaintiffs have challenged the notice issued by the Grampanchayat but they have not sought declaration nor they have filed any suit for specific performance of agreement and that they are not entitled to any relief under Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act. Referring to the document filed by the plaintiffs it is submitted that all the documents pertain to the building permissions granted in respect of the constructions sought to be made in the plots purchased by the plaintiffs and the Grampanchayat never permitted the plaintiffs to make construction in the vacant site or on the public road. It is also his submission that no transfer takes place in the absence of any registered sale deed and even if any document is there the same is hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act. It is also his submission that the permissions sought vide permission Survey No.587, dated 16.08.1977 clearly shows that the permission was granted in the plots of the plaintiffs and not in the open plot. It is also his submission that in all the plots submitted by the plaintiffs themselves they have categorically shown the open land and roads and that the suit is not maintainable. Sri D. Seshadri Naidu, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, submits that DW.2 is the Secretary of the local welfare association and the said fact is admitted by PW.1. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have not sought the relief of declaration nor they have taken any plea of adverse possession, therefore, the suit filed, challenging a notice issued by the Grampanchayat is not maintainable. It is further submitted that PW.2 has categorically stated that the roads which are mentioned in the layout in Sy.Nos.109, 110 and 111 of Gaddiannaram village are for public use and that the Grampanchayat cannot sell public places. His main submission is that whenever a place is left as a vacant site or for public park or roads such place must be used for the purpose for which it is vested with the Grampanchayat and cannot be sold to any person. It is his submission that any adjoining owner of a public park or road cannot say that except himself no other person has access to the public park or road and therefore he can close the road in front of his house and make use the road and public park for his own purpose. He further submitted that whenever the public place or a road margin is encroached or illegal constructions have been made even if for any reason the concerned municipality has granted permission for construction of said building the question of promissory estoppel