IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19752 of 2003 Between: Tottaramudi Gram Panchayat, rep.by its Sarpanch G.Lankeswara Rao, Tottaramudi (v) Ainavilli Mandal, East Godavari Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra pradesh,Revenue Department, rep.by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, East Godavari District,Kakinada. 3 The District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari Dist. Kakinada. 4 The Revenue Development Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari Dist. 5 The Mandal Revenue officer, Ainavilli Mandal, East Godavari Dist. 6 The Executive Engineer, (PWS Project,Mummidivarfam, E.G.Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. N.TATA BABU FOR MR.V.AJAY KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for taking over the Gra m Panchayat Tank admeasuring Ac.9.00 in Survey No.92 of Tottaramudi Village, Ainavilli Mandal, East Godavari District. The petitioner is the Gram Panchayat of Tottaramudi. It filed the present writ petition through it’s the then Sarpanch, Lankeswara Rao with the averments that the petitioner is the minor panchayat with a small income source; that its major income is through tank in question through auctioning of coconut trees numbering around 260 existing on the bund and that the said tank was highhandedly taken over by the respondents without either consent or permission from the petitioner Gram Panchayat. The petitioner, therefore, sought for payment of compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for taking over the tank. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 wherein it is averred that the land in Survey No.92, where the tank exists, is classified as Government poramboke in the revenue records and, hence, the same is Government land and that the petitioner has no right or title either in the land or over the tank. It is further averred that under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) certain porambokes vests with the Gram Panchayat, but title does not vest in it. It is submitted that it is only respondent No.6, who took over the property for construction of a Summer Storage Tank to provide drinking water to the public in the year 1989 and that the Gram Panchayat passed resolution on 26.03.1999 for conversion of tank into drinking water tank in pursuance of the requisition made by the then Deputy Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply Project wherein a request was made by the Gram Panchayat to release Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.6,00,000/- for construction of drains. It is, however, averred that as the Gram Panchayat is not the owner of the land, it cannot claim any compensation. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.6. At the hearing, I asked the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that whether Sri G.Lankeswara Rao, who filed the present writ petition on behalf of the Gram Panchayat had legal authority to file the writ petition. The learned counsel was unable to give any useful information in this regard. The Sarpanch failed to plead that he had necessary authority to file the present writ petition and represent the petitioner Gram Panchayat. Under Section 4(3) of the Act, every Gram Panchayat shall be a body corporate by the name of the village specified in the notification issued under Section 3, shall have perpetual succession and a common seal, and subject to any restriction or qualification imposed by or under the Act or any other law, shall be vested with the capacity of suing or being sued in its corporate name. Under Section 25, the Sarpanch, inter alia, shall exercise all the powers and perform all the functions specifically conferred or imposed on him by the Act or the Rules made thereunder and act only within the terms of sanction given in any resolution of the Gram Panchayat. Section 30 provides for appointment of a whole time or a part time Executive Officer for a Gram Panchayat and if no such Executive Officer is appointed, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat shall, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Executive Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought to my notice any provision under the Act or the Rules which straightaway authorize the Sarpanch to institute a case in a Court without specific authorization by the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner failed to file any document to show that he was specifically authorized by the Gram Panchayat to file the present petition. Hence, I am of the view that the writ petition filed by the then Sarpanch without proper authority to represent the Gram Panchayat cannot be entertained and adjudicated. Even on merits, except claiming that the tank in question was vested in the Gram Panchayat, no material has been produced in the writ petition in support of the said averment. Since a specific contention is raised in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 that the land in Survey No.92, in which the tank in question is situated, is vested in the Government and not in the Gram Panchayat, the questions whether the land was vested in the Gram Panchayat or not and whether in the event of the said land being used for a public purpose, it is entitled to payment of compensation, fall in the realm of disputed facts. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordinarily does not embark upon these questions of fact. If the Gra m Panchayat through its proper authority seeks payment of compensation in accordance with law, the appropriate remedy for it is to approach the competent civil Court by raising necessary pleadings and claim compensation by adducing necessary oral and documentary evidence, if it so chooses. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.24762 of 2003 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NARAGJUNA REDDY, J 16th June, 2008. kvni