THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.27454 of 2008 Date: 24.11.2010 Between: Gundla Balram …Petitioner And The District Panchayat Officer, Medak at Sangareddy and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.27454 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent in Case No.233/2008/A3-Pts, dated 13.11.2008, allowing the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent under Section 128 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for brevity “the Act”) against the orders of the 2nd respondent-Panchayat Secretary, Prashanthnagar Gram Panchayat, Siddipet, Medak District, in proceedings No.GPP/M/2007, dated 9.10.2007, recording the name of the petitioner in respect of house bearing No.19-69, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are brothers. It is the case of the petitioner that their father died in the year 1980 leaving behind 3 sons i.e., the petitioner, the 3rd respondent and one Gundla Muthaiah. During his life, their father purchased 400 square yards of land situated within Prashanthnagar Gram Panchayat by way of a registered sale deed, bearing document No.11 of 1965, dated 9.1.1965. After the death of their father, as per the settlement entered into between the brothers, the said land was equally divided between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein. Both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent have constructed rooms in their respective portions of the land. The 3rd respondent has been living in his portion and paying the tax in respect of the entire extent of land by collecting half of the tax from the petitioner. Since the 3rd respondent was paying tax, his name was incorporated in the Gram Panchayat records as the owner for the entire extent of land. Therefore, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for incorporation of his name in the Gram Panchayat records to the extent of his half share of 200 square yards. On the said application, the 2nd respondent passed orders in proceedings No.GPP/M/2007, dated 9.10.2007, recording the name of the petitioner in respect of house bearing No.19-69. Aggrieved by the said orders, the 3rd respondent preferred an appeal under Section 128 of the Act before the 1st respondent. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even though he is not competent to entertain the appeal, the 1st respondent allowed the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent by proceedings Case No.233/2008/A3-Pts, dated 13.11.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Gram Panchayat, and Sri Ch. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by virtue of the settlement, dated 26.5.1985, arrived at between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, the petitioner acquired right in respect of half of the share in the land and hence the 2nd respondent-Gram Panchayat has rightly incorporated the name of the petitioner in respect of the land towards the share of the petitioner in the Gram Panchayat records. It is also contended that the orders passed by the 2nd respondent are not amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of the 1st respondent, therefore, the orders impugned are without jurisdiction. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the 3rd respondent has purchased the entire extent of land and constructed a house thereon. He denies the allegation that the said land was joint family property. He, therefore, submits that the 2nd respondent, without conducting proper enquiry, ordered for incorporation of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. The learned counsel seeks to sustain the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent contending that the 2nd respondent-Gram Panchayat itself passed a resolution on 1.10.2007 giving a direction to the 2nd respondent-Executive Authority to incorporate the name of the petitioner as per the family settlement, dated 26.5.1985 and, as such, the 1st respondent is competent to entertain the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent. 6. From the above said facts, it appears that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent have set up rival claims against each other. It is not possible to record a finding on the said disputed question of fact as to whether either of the party is entitled for incorporation of their names in the Gram Panchayat records in respect of the disputed land. 7. The substantive contention, however, raised on behalf of the petitioner is that no appeal lies to the 1st respondent against the orders passed by the 2nd respondent. 8. Rules have been made in G.O.Ms.No.282, Panchayat Raj, dated 12.2.1965, under the Act, which appear to be in force till date. Rule 14 of the said rules provides for effecting changes in the ownership of house in the assessment books, as per which changes can be effected by voluntary action of the owners, transfers at the instance of the decree holders, transfers under declaratory decrees and transfers which accrue by succession. The said rule requires that the Executive Authority shall examine the claims of the applicants and by following the provisions under clauses (1) to (4) of Rule 14 and then only order changes in the ownership of house in the assessment books. 9. Rule 15 of the said rules provides for an appeal to the Gram Panchayat against the orders of the Executive Authority and such appeals shall be presented within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order appealed against. 10. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent, who is the Executive Authority, has passed the order, dated 9.10.2007, incorporating the name of the petitioner. As per Rule 15 of the said Rules, the 3rd respondent ought to have filed an appeal before the Gram Panchayat, instead of filing the same before the 1st respondent against the orders of the 2nd respondent. It must, therefore, be held that the said appeal is incompetent and the order passed by the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction. 11. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, however, contends that he was constrained to file appeal before the 1st respondent in view of the fact that the 2nd respondent passed orders only on the directions of the Gram Panchayat, therefore, no purpose would be served by approaching the very same authority, at whose instance the 2nd respondent passed orders. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that there was such a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. In view of the said fact, it is true that the 3rd respondent could not file the appeal before the Gram Panchayat. 13. Be that as it may, the 3rd respondent is not remediless. Section 264 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 provides a remedy by way of revision to the State Government, which empowers the State Government either suo-motu or on an application of any interested person to call for and examine the record of a Gram Panchayat or of any authority or officer or person, in respect of any proceedings to satisfy themselves as to the regularity of such proceeding and the correctness and legality of the orders passed therein. In view of the statutory remedy available, the 3rd respondent can, as well, avail the said remedy against the orders passed by the 2nd respondent. 14. Having regard to the fact that the 3rd respondent succeeded in the appeal before the 1st respondent and the said orders were under challenge in the present writ petition, I deem it appropriate to direct the State Government to entertain the revision without reference to limitation, to which the learned counsel for the petitioner also concedes that he has no objection. 15. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the orders, dated 13.11.2008, passed by the 1st respondent in Case No.233/2008/A3-Pts. However, the 3rd respondent is given liberty to avail the remedy by filing a revision before the State Government. The 3rd respondent is permitted to file the revision, if he is so choses, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such revision being filed within the said time, the State Government shall entertain the same without objecting on the ground of limitation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving notice to both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 24.11.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.27454 of 2008 24.11.2010 (Msr)