THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7732 of 2002 Date: 23.7.2010 Between: The Gram Panchayat, Narkidi Milli, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector,East Godavari and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G. Ramgopal Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : G.P. for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.5: Sri G. Krishna Murthy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 7732 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 3 in proposing to dispose of the land admeasuring Acs. 1.76 cents comprised in Survey Nos. 23-1-B,23-2B, 25, 37 and 40 of Narkidimilli Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner, Gram Panchayat pleaded that the above mentioned lands are vested in it under Section 55 and 58 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). However, it has been paying the rents to respondent No.4 every year on their demand. It has further pleaded that it has auctioned the rights to cut the natural green grass grown on the said lands and deriving income. The petitioner alleged that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have been attempting to dispose of the land illegally by granting pattas to the individuals and that it has made a representation on 15.4.2002 requesting the said respondents to drop the proposed action. It has claimed that as the land is vested in it under the above mentioned provisions of the Act, the proposed action of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is illegal. After the writ petition was admitted, this Court allowed respondent No.5 to be impleaded and accordingly the said respondent has come on record. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, it is inter alia stated that the property in question is in the nature of a flood bank, which is vested in the irrigation department and not with the petitioner-Gram Panchayat. It is further stated that the Joint Collector has granted lease to Respondent No.5, which has expired by 30.6.2002; that no further action is initiated for leasing out the land and that respondent No.5 is in possession so far. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5, it is stated that he was granted ek-sal lease over an extent of Acs.1.40 cents out of Acs.1.76 cents on 27.3.2002 and that the petitioner-Gram Panchayat itself has recommended grant of lease in his favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended at the hearing that under Section 55 of the Act, “any property or income which by custom belongs to or has been administered for the benefit of the villagers in common or the holders in common of village land generally or of lands of a particular description or of lands under a particular source of irrigation, shall vest in the Gram Panchayat and be administered by it for the benefit of the villagers or holders.” Relying on this provision, learned counsel submitted that as the petitioner has been leasing out the property for more than 30 years, it should be declared that the property is vested in it by custom. I am unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel. From the averments made by the petitioner itself, it is clear that it has been paying lease to the Irrigation Department every year for raising green grass. The letter dated 27.6.1995 filed by the petitioner shows that it was addressed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, V.L.B. Upper Section (I.D.), Gopalapuram, East Godavari District to the Sarpanch of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat wherein the former has requested the latter to pay the rentals for raising green grass on the left bund of Vasishta river. This material clearly establishes that the river bund is under the management and administration of the Irrigation Department and with its permission, the petitioner has been using the said bund for growing grass. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the said river bund falls within the provisions of either Section 53 or Section 56 of the Act. As such, the petitioner’s plea that the river bund is vested in it cannot be accepted. However, it is interesting to notice that while on the own showing of respondent No.3, the property is vested in the Irrigation Department, it is not known as to how the Joint Collector could grant ek-sal lease in favour of respondent No.5. By its very nature, the river bund of a major river like Vasishta, one of the branches of Godavari is required to be protected properly. Such a sensitive place cannot be leased out to individuals as it is likely to cause damage. As the ek-sal lease said to have been granted in favour of respondent No.5 has already expired by efflux of time, it is appropriate that the respondent shall preserve the river bund without allowing the third parties to use it except under the effective supervision of the Irrigation Department, which is in administrative control of the bund. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, W.V.M.P. No.3077 of 2002 filed by the petitioner is also disposed of. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 23rd July, 2010 pnb