THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.20664 of 2007 (Dated : 28-09-2010) Between: Saidapur Gram Panchayat Rep. by its Sarpanch Smt. Kanukunth Sumithra ….Petitioner A n d District Collector, Karimnagar and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.20664 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Saidapur Gram Panchayat represented by its Sarpanch Smt. Kanukunth Sumithra seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents to shift the office of Tahsildar, Saidapur Mandal, Karimnagar from the present premises situated at Saidapur village as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the District Collector, Karimnagar-1st respondent to act upon the Lr.No.A/163/2007 dated 31.8.2007 issued by the Tahsildar, Saidapur Mandal-2nd respondent. 2. Saidapur Gram Panchayat represented by its Sarpanch Smt. Kanukunth Sumitra is the writ petitioner. Saidapur Mandal has population of around 3000. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that in the year 1984, the Tahsil office was located at premises bearing H.No.12-76, Saidapur village. The premises wherein the Tahsil office is located is accessible to nearby villages viz., Vennampally, Ammangurthi, Bommakal, Perkapalle, Jagirpally, Somaram, Godishala, Elabotharam, Aclaspur etc. The Tahsil office is located in a rented premises. As it has become congested, the people of Saidapur village requested K.Narasimha Reddy to donate his land situated nearby bus-station. Accordingly, Sri K.Narasimha Reddy donated Ac.0.08 guntas in Sy.No.111/A for the purpose of construction of Tahsil office at Saidapur village. He handed over Ac.0-08 guntas of land to the Tahsildar, Saidapur Mandal. Thereafter, the Tahasildar, Saidapur Mandal requested the District Collector, Karimnagar-1st respondent for allotment of funds for construction of pakka building on the land donated by Narasimha Reddy for location of Tahsil office. The villagers of Saidapur submitted representation to the District Collector on 31.8.2007 for release of funds for construction of a new premises in the land donated by Narasimha Reddy. The 1st respondent without allotting any funds is contemplating to shift the Tahsil office to a dilapidated building situated at the outskirts of Saidapur village, which comes within the purview of Venkupally village. According to the petitioner, the premises wherein the Tahsil office is proposed to be shifted is not convenient for the villagers of Saidapur. Hence, the action of the respondents in contemplating to shift the Tahsil office, Saidapur to the dilapidated building situated at the outskirts of village is assailed in this writ petition. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer paras 5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which read as hereunder:- “5. It is submitted that the present office of the 2nd respondent is situated in the middle of our village and the same is easily accessible. There is no threat of eviction from the present premises. Even the present proposed location, which is near to Saidapur Bus stand, will be more convenient for the general public. While the villagers of Saidapur village in right earnest, are making every effort to get the permanent office established in the village for easy accessibility to the public at large, the 1st respondent is not allotting any funds for commencing construction. On top of it, the 1st respondent is contemplating to shift the 2nd respondent office from the present location to the place, which is situated in the outskirts of our village and which also falls under Venkapally village into a dilapidated building. In fact in the said building there was Mandal Praja Parishad Office. As the said building was in a dilapidated condition, the said office was shifted to a newly constructed premises. It is reliably learnt that the 1st respondent is seeking to shift the office of the 2nd respondent to the said building by allotting funds for redoing the said premises. Instead the 1st respondent could have allotted the funds for the construction of the office of the 2nd respondent in the donated premises. Moreover the proposed venue will be nearly one and half kilometer from the village and the said venue does not have easy accessibility and ourselves and also the nearby villages would suffer great loss and hardship to approach the said venue and as such the said location would be totally disadvantageous to us and also the nearby villages. 6. It is submitted the whole purpose of relinquishing the land for construction of the 2nd respondent’s office is to ensure that the location of the said office shall be convenient to one and all. Despite completion of al the formalities, the 1st respondent is not taking any steps to execute the project and instead defeating the said purpose by shifting the office of the 2nd respondent to a far off place. Shifting the office of the 2nd respondent to another temporary premises by redoing the premises thereby incurring substantial expenditure would be of no avail to the villagers or the respective office. Instead, the 1st respondent could have allotted the funds for construction of the office of the 2nd respondent and thus establish a permanent building for the office of the 2nd respondent. If the allotted land is not made use of immediately, the said land having become a government land would be prone to encroachments. Thus no useful purpose would be served in not utilizing the said land forthwith. But unfortunately, no action from the 1st respondent is forthcoming from that angle”. 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 01.10.2007. An interim direction to the respondents not to shift the Tahsil office from the rented premises has been granted on 20.01.2009, vide W.P.M.P.No.32760 of 2008. 4. One Kotha Malla Reddy moved W.P.M.P.No.37403 of 2007 seeking his impleadment as party respondent in the writ petition. So also Munupala Ravi moved W.P.M.P.No.836 of 2008 seeking his impleadment as party respondent in the writ petition. Both the applications came to be ordered on 9.9.2009. 5. Respondents 1 and 2 moved W.V.M.P.No.502 of 2009 whereas respondent No.3 moved W.V.M.P.No.477 of 2010 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 20.01.2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No.32760 of 2008. 6. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 7. Before dwelling deep into the rival contentions of the parties, I deem it appropriate to refer the counter affidavits. In the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is stated that an amount of Rs.1, 20,000/- has been released by the 1st respondent in Proceedings No.E4/5067/05, dt.22.02.2008 and the required repairs have been effected and brought the premises suitable for locating the Tahsil office. Most of the Government offices are located in the premises to which the Tahsil office is proposed to be shifted and it is convenient for the public to visit Government Offices located in one compound. The proposal of shifting the premises has been sanctioned in February, 2008 and the premises to which the office is to be shifted has been made suitable for occupation. 8. The writ petitioner filed reply affidavit. It is stated in the reply affidavit that the 2nd respondent addressed letter No.A/163/05 Dt.23.10.2008 to the 1st respondent expressing the difficulties in shifting the premises to the sheds situated at Venkupalli and further requested for according permission to construct a permanent building as earlier proposed. The letter addressed by the 2nd respondent itself speaks of non-suitability of the proposed building. 9. The case of the 3rd respondent as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the implead petition, in brief, is: The location of offices for the convenience of the public is the prerogative of the Government. The writ petition is filed by the Sarpanch for her personal gain since the land donated by K.Narasimha Reddy is adjacent to her land. Because of the extension of the villages, the land donated by K.Narasimha Reddy is not feasible to locate the Tahsil office. The premises now proposed is in Venkupally village and it is surrounded by Police Station, Agricultural office, MPDO office etc. As such, everyone has accessibility to all offices located within the same vicinity. The MPTC members, and Sarpanches of all nearby villages have passed resolutions to the effect that location of Tahsil office in Venkupally village is more convenient to them. The certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Venkupalli- Saidapur Mandal is evident that the building proposed to be occupied for locating the Tahsil office is in good condition and it is at a distance of 400 meters from the Bus stand. The Mandal system came to be introduced in the year 1984 with an intention to locate all government offices in one compound. The Government acquired 15 acres of land at Venkupally village for locating all Government offices in one compound and constructed office buildings in the acquired land. Venkupally and Saidapur are twin villages and the Mandal is named as Venkupally –Saidapur Mandal. Paras 3 and 4 of the affidavit need to be noted and they read thus:- “3. At the outset I submit that the writ petition is totally misconceived and has filed for personal gains and therefore liable to be dismissed in limini. The location of offices for the convenience of public is the prerogative of the Government and unless if it effects the convenience of the general public by showing valid and substantial reasons the same can be questioned. But in this case the above writ petition is filed purely for personal gains since the land of the Sarpanch is adjacent to the land which is donated by one K.Narasimha Reddy and the same is not sufficient, not useful, not convenient to the people of two villages, i.e., Saidapur as well as Venkupalli. Therefore, the writ petition filed without any valid reasons is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 4. In reply to paragraph 2, I submit that it is true that originally Venkupally-Saidapur Mandal Revenue Officer is established in a private house at Saidapur village, but it is incorrect to say that it is also convenient to other nearby villages as stated in this paragraph. At the time of establishing office in the year 1984 the population of the village mentioned above is very less and as there is no other viable location the Mandal Revenue Officer’s Office is located at the above said private premises and said house is now very congested”. 10. The case of the 4th respondent, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the implead petition, in brief, is:- During the year 1984, the Government of Andhra Pradesh formed Mandals in lieu of the then existing Talukas and in pursuance of formation of Mandals, the Government acquired 15 acres of land in Vekupally village with an intention to construct all Government offices in one compound for the convenience of the public. The Tahsil office is located in a private building, which is almost in a condemned state and even the landlord of the building made a request in the year 2005 to vacate the premises. The District Collector proposed shifting of the Taluk office to the Government offices complex and instructed the R.D.O to send proposals to undertake repair works in a portion of the office complex to accommodate the Tahsil office. The land donated by K.Narasimha Reddy is not sufficient for construction of Tahsil office. 11. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the two sheds situated at Venkupally village are not suitable for housing the Tahsil office. Learned counsel refers the letter dated 23.10.2008 emanated from the office of the Tahisldar, Venkupally village, Saidapur Mandal, wherein it is stated that two sheds are not suitable for accommodating the Tahsil office. A further submission has been made that the land donated by Narasimha Reddy is nearby bus-station and is suitable for construction of Tahsil office. Having accepted the land donated by Narasimha Reddy, it is impermissible for the respondents 1 and 2 to locate Tahsil office at Venkupally. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that all the Government offices are located at Venkupally and that the Government acquired 15 acres of land in the year 1984 at Venkupally for accommodating all Government offices and it takes care of location of Tahsil office also, and therefore, the proposal of the Government for locating the Tahsil office at Venkupally cannot be found fault. He would also contend that it is for the Government to decide the suitability as to the location of the office premises and not for the writ petitioner. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.8185 of 2002 dated 13.7.2002 (Sama Ram Reddy and others v. The Commissioner, Department of Endowments, Ramkoti, A.P., Hyderabad). Much emphasis has been laid on the following para of the cited judgment, which reads as hereunder:- “ Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions made in the writ petition, submitted that once the temple is situated within the Shivars of Venkatapuram village, construction of office premises for Executive Officer in the shivars of Aroor village is arbitrary and illegal and the same was undertaken due to political influence. He further submitted that there is no plausible explanation was given for construction of the office building far away from the temple. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader contends that the petitioners have no say in the matter with regard to the location of the office building and it is for the respondents-authorities to judge where the office building has to be located. It is well settled preposition of law that suitability as to location of the office premises is for the Government to decide and not for the High Court and High Court had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the decision of the State Government to locate such office at a particular village, which is dependent upon various factors. [see J.R.RAGHUPATHI v. STATE OF AP 1988(4) SCC 364]. 14. The Government has sanctioned necessary funds for effecting repairs to the existing two sheds pending construction of permanent building, which is evident from the letter dated 23.10.2008. If the proposed accommodation requires any additional construction, it is for the Government to take care of. It is not for the writ petitioner to suggest that the premises proposed for accommodating the Tahsil office is not suitable. The above- referred decision also reiterates the proposition of law laid down in J.Raghupathi v. State of A.P. 15. Indisputably, all other offices are located in the land acquired by the Government in the year 1984. Shifting of the Tahsil office to the premises, wherein other offices are located is indeed more convenient to people of Venkupally-Saidapur Mandal. 16. In view of the above discussion, I find that the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim order granted on 20.01.2009 shall stand vacated. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.28-09-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.20664 of 2007 (Dated : 28-09-2010)