IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL No.658 of 1999 BETWEEN Gram Panchayat, Honjaram, Srikakulam District. …APPELLANT AND Yegati Ramudu and others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR. M.V.S. SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: The appellant – Gram Panchayat filed a suit being O.S.No.55 of 1992 for possession of the plaint schedule land and for permanent injunction against defendants 9 and 10 from granting D-form pattas of the plaint schedule lands in favour of defendants 1 to 8. 2. The case of the appellant – gram panchayat was that the land, which is admittedly promaboke land vests in the gram panchayat and it is only the appellant/panchayat, which has entitlement and power to deal with the said land and neither the State nor the Mandal Revenue Officer can alienate the said land to the landless poor persons (defendants 1 to 8) under its policy of assignment. 3. The said suit was resisted by the State by filing a written statement asserting its right to deal with the said land for Governmental purpose on the ground that the State itself had granted the same to the appellant/panchayat and it has also ensured that an extent of Ac.0.8 cents in Sy.No.172 and Ac.0.11 cents in Sy.NO.129 is kept for the purpose of village Goddess called “Ammavaru”, which is sufficient for the purpose of said temple, as the festival is conducted once in three years. The State, therefore, stated that it can use the rest of the land for public purpose, as it is even otherwise lying idle and vacant. It appears that Section 80 notice was dispensed with under the specific orders of the trial Court. 4. The trial Court framed various issues and the crucial among them being whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the plaint schedule property on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf the plaintiff and the defendants, the trial Court came to the conclusion that Ex.B1 does not by itself give absolute title to the appellant/gram panchayat. The lower appellate Court, on appeal being A.S.No.3 of 1998, has confirmed the said findings. Hence, this second appeal. 5. This second appeal was admitted on 20.07.1999 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the suit schedule property described admittedly as poramboke does not vest in Gram Panchayat by virtue of the provisions of A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1994, has repealed by the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994? 2. When the suit schedule property vests in Gram Panchayat whether it is open for the Government to lay any claim overt the property? 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the Courts below committed error in not appreciating that the poramboke lands within panchayat vests in the Gram Panchayat. Reliance is placed on Section 58 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). Learned counsel, therefore, submits that while the suit is pending and overruling the objections and authority of the appellant/gram panchayat, the ninth defendant – State and the tenth defendant – Mandal Revenue Officer have alienated the house site pattas to defendants 1 to 8 from part of the suit schedule land. He contests the findings of both the Courts below. 8. It is essential to notice Section 58(1) of the Act, which is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference. 58. Certain Government porambokes to vest in gram panchayat etc. : - (1) The following porambokes namely grazing grounds, threshing floors, burning and burial grounds, cattle stands, carts tanks and topes, which are the disposal of the Government and are not required by them for any specific purpose shall vest in the gram panchayat subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed.” 9. It would be immediately noticed from the above that all poramboke lands vest in the gram panchayat only to the extent that are not required by the Government for specific purpose and such vesting also is subject to restrictions and control as may be prescribed by the State. Since the State has sovereign and paramount title and under the assignment policy since a public purpose is advanced for the benefit of weaker sections, the vesting of the land, as contended by the appellant, itself is not absolute and as such vesting is only for the remaining land, which is not required by the State for its purposes. In that view of the matter and in view of the sovereign functions of this nature by the State, not being open to question by a local authority, the substantial questions of law deserve to be answered against the appellant. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 15, 2011 DSK