The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.6389 of 2010 Dated 22nd March, 2010 Between: The Korisapadu Gram Panchayat, Korisapadu, rep. by its Secretary Sri K.Subbarao. …Petitioner And 1.The Secretary to Government of A.P., Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Mokkapati Prabhakara Rao Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Home The Court made the following: This Court made the following: Order:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.3, in assisting the petitioner- Korisapadu Gram Panchayat in discharging its public duty, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Section 139 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). I have heard Sri M.Prabhakara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing the respondents and perused the record. Certain trees on a tank bund were auctioned by the petitioner on 19th February, 2008. Questioning the said auction, respondent No.4- Water Users Association is stated to have filed W.P.No.4311 of 2008 and the same was dismissed by this Court by order, dated 3rd March, 2010. In the said order, this Court held as under: “In the light of the aforesaid admitted facts, I am unable to hold that the petitioner- association, which was formed in the year 2004 under the provisions of the Act, cannot claim rights over the tees that were planted by the Social Forest Department and were gown up by the Gram Panchayat at its own cost. The contention of the petitioner-association that since the tank vests with the Irrigation Department as per Section 22 (iv) of the Act, the funds of the petitioner-association shall comprise of income over all the properties and the assets attached to the Irrigation system and its bunds including grass, trees and etc., cannot be accepted so far as the babul trees in question are concerned since they are not naturally grown trees. Having regard to the admitted fact that they were planted by the Forest Department and were grown and maintained by the Gram Panchayat in terms of a statutory scheme, the rights acquired by Gram Panchayat, under the terms of the agreement entered with the Forest Department are saved by Section 47 of the Act. Hence, the petitioner’s claim to receive the sale proceeds of the said trees is untenable and therefore, the Mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition, which is devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs.” Subsequent to the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the petitioner issued proceedings, dated 11-03-2010, permitting the contractor to execute the work of felling and transporting the trees. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.4 resisted the attempt of the contractor to execute the said work. The petitioner thereupon filed a representation though its proceedings, dated 13th March, 2010, wherein it has requested respondent No.3 to give sufficient protection to enable the contractor to remove and transport the auctioned trees. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said proceedings, respondent No.3 has not provided any security. Under Section 139 of the Act, every Police Officer, in whose jurisdiction the Village is situated, shall be bound to assist the Gram Panchayat and its Officers and Servants in exercise of their lawful authority. Having regard to the categorical finding of this Court that respondent No.4 has no right to claim compensation over the trees in question, the petitioner- Gram Panchayat cannot be prevented from exercising its lawful authority of causing the trees removed and transported in pursuance of the auction held by it. Respondent No.3 is therefore bound to assist the petitioner in this regard. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner and carry out its duty under Section 139 of the Act. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.8246 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. --------------------------------- C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Date: 22-3-2010 lur