THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.24937 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: The petitioners herein along with others filed W.P.No.22267 of 2004 claiming that they were in occupation of small extents of land belonging to the Government wherein they were carrying on petty business for the past many years. It was also claimed by them that the 3rd respondent/Gram Panchayat had issued Occupancy Certificates and was collecting lease amount from them. While so, the 3rd respondent/Gram Panchayat passed a resolution to evict the petitioners from the small extents in their occupation on the ground that the said land is required for construction of a shopping complex. The said action was challenged in W.P.No.22267 of 2004. Since the Gram Panchayat was willing to make temporary arrangements by providing alternative site to the petitioners and also to lease out the shops to the petitioners once the construction of shopping complex is complete, this Court dismissed the writ petition, observing that since the impugned action is for their benefit, the petitioners cannot be allowed to question the same. Pursuant thereto, it appears that alternative sites were allotted to the petitioners herein on temporary basis. However, after completion of the shopping complex, the 3rd respondent/Gram Panchayat passed resolutions dated 9.03.2006 and 6.06.2006 proposing to lease out the shops situated in the shopping complex only to some of the vendors and the petitioners herein were not extended the said benefit. Pursuant thereto, the District Collector, Panchayat Wing by order dated 29.10.2007 permitted the Gram Panchayat to lease out the said shops for a period of three years as per the Gram Panchayat resolution. In compliance with the same, the Gram Panchayat issued notices to the persons in whose favour the allotments were made calling upon them to deposit the required amount. Aggrieved by the said action, this writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not allotting the shops to the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri G. Elisha, learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/Gram Panchayat and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondents 1 and 2. The material placed before this Court shows that after completion of the shopping complex, the Gram Panchayat passed two resolutions dated 9.03.2006 and 6.6.2006, on the basis of which the 1st respondent/District Collector granted approval for leasing out the said shops to the allottees. Whether such resolutions were passed in accordance with law and whether the petitioners herein were in occupation of any sites as lessees prior to the construction of shopping complex are all disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into and decided in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also relevant to note that under Section 246 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act”), power is vested in the Government to consider the legality and validity of the resolutions, passed by the Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad or a Zilla Parishad. As per Section 246(1) on a reference made by the concerned executive authority where it is found that such resolution is not legally passed; or is in excess or abuse of the powers conferred by or under the Act, or any other law; or its execution is likely to cause danger to human life, health or safety or is likely to lead to riot or affray, the Government after conducting due enquiry can set aside the same. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners ought to have made a representation before the executive authority seeking a reference to the Government under Section 246 of the Act. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion as to the rights claimed by the petitioners for allotment of shops in the shopping complex, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the executive authority within a period of four weeks from today. If any such representation is made, the Executive Authority shall make necessary reference in terms of Section 246 (1) of the Act for a decision by the Government following due process of law. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. 05.08.2008. Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.24937 of 2007 Between: 1 T. Chandramouli S/o. Laxmaiah, C/o. Ch. Ramulu, R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Sultanabad, Karimnagar. 2 Valasa Madusudan S/o. Rajuveeru, R/o. Pasala Shastry Nagar, Sultanabad, Karimnagar District. 3 Purella Laxminarayana S/o.Mallaiah, S/o. Pochamma Veedhi, Sultanabad, Karimnagar 4 Nagichetti Kanukaiah S/o. Durgaiah, Kolanur Road, Sultanabad, Karimnagar District. 5 Kanduri Komaraiah S/o. Ramaiah, R/o. 7-84/A, Kapuwada, Sultanabad, Karimnagar. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Karimnagar. 2 The District Panchayat officer, Karimnagar 3 The Gram Panchayat , Sultanabad, Karimnagar District, represented by its Surpanch. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus; i) declare the action of the respondents in not allotting shops to the petitioners at Rajiv shopping complex at Sultanabad, Karimnagar as illegal, and arbitrary, and set aside resolution No.24/2006 dated 9-3-2006 and Resolution No.25/2006 dated 6-6-2006 and notification No.A1/331/Gps.2007 dated12-11-2007 of 3rd respondents and proceeding No,A2/292/2006 Pts. dated 29-10-2007 issued by the 1st respondent. ii) consequently direct the respondents to allot shops in Rajiv Shopping Complex at Sultanabad to petitioners at the place where the petitioners were running shops prior to commencement of construction of Rajiv shopping complex at Sultanabad duly accepting the deposits and rents from the petitioners. iii) and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: M R.K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. Sri G. Elisha, SC for ZPPs and MPPs The Court made the following: