THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No. 4447 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioners filed O.S.No.153 of 2011 in the Court of District Judge, Ongole against the respondents for the relief of declaration that ‘X’ marked portion in the plaint plan is a private lane, for the benefit of Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Temple in the business complex area and for consequential injunction. Reliance was placed upon Section 22-A of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) for presenting the suit in the District Court. Respondents 3 to 5, who contested the matter, raised an objection as to the jurisdiction of the Court. According to them, the suit was valued at Rs.25,000/- and it ought to have been presented in the Court of lower jurisdiction. The petitioners on the other hand pleaded that since the relief is claimed against the Gram Panchayat, the jurisdiction of other Courts is barred and that it can be maintained only by the Court of District Judge. Through a detailed order, dated 02.09.2011, the District Court returned the plaint. It is also directed that notice be issued in terms of Rule 10(a) of Order VII C.P.C. for appearance of the petitioners herein in the Court, where the plaint is filed after its return. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the purport of Section 22-A of the Act cannot be restricted to the matters pertaining to disqualification of elective representatives and that it applies to any disputes vis-à- vis the Gram Panchayats or other local bodies. He further submits that the trial Court has placed a restricted interpretation upon the provision. He also submits that the view taken by this Court in Datla Surya Kumari vs. Gram Panchayat, Lanmkalakoderu and another[1] needs re- consideration. Before the Act was enacted, the formation and administration of Gram Panchayats was controlled by the provisions of the A.P.Gram Panchayats Act. The Act i.e., A.P. Panchayat Raj Act has brought about several changes, which were contemplated under Part-IX of the Constitution of India. Chapter I of the Act provides for formation of Gram Panchayats, elections to the office of sarpanch, members etc. and disqualifications, that emerge on account of various reasons, mentioned in Sections 17 to 20(B). Section 22 of the Act prescribes the authority to decide the questions of disqualification of members. Section 22- A of the Act was introduced in the year 2002. The necessity has arisen on account of some uncertainty as to the Courts, in which matters pertaining to the disqualifications, were to be presented. From the preamble of the Act, through which the said provision was introduced, it becomes clear that Section 22-A of the Act which conferred jurisdiction upon the District Court was not at all intended to cover all the disputes vis-à-vis the Gram Panchayats. It is only the matters pertaining to disqualifications, that are brought under its purview. The suit filed by the petitioners was for the relief of declaration of their rights vis-à-vis a lane marked as ‘X’ in the plaint plan and for perpetual injunction. The relief has no specific attributes that are referable to the Act, much less the suit is directed against any order that was passed under the provisions of the Act. The learned District Judge has taken correct view of the matter and directed return of the plaint to be presented before a proper Forum. The provision was already interpreted by this Court in Datla Surya Kumari’s case (1 supra) and the same is binding, as the law stands now. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 14.10.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No. 4447 of 2011 Date: 14.10.2011 JSU [1] 2006(2) ALD 249