ORDER
A. Gopal Reddy, J.
1. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Principal District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru dated 1-3-2005 in S.R. No.3034/2005 dated 21-2-2005 in returning the plaint holding that suit cannot be entertained in the absence of any order from the first respondent-Gram Panchayat or action taken or to be taken in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short “the Act”).
2. The revision petitioner-plaintiff instituted the above suit for mandatory injunction to remove the black sand in “A1B1C1D1” area of the plaint schedule plan upto 2 feet placed by the defendants and to reduce the same to its normal level; permanent injunction restraining the defendants from forming a road in an height of 4 feet in “A1B1C1D1” area of the plaint plan and for a mandatory injunction to remove the earth placed in the said area. Office raised an objection stating that in view of Section 22-A of the Act, how the suit is maintainable. On representation of the plaint, the matter was called on Bench. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court returned the plaint stating that in the absence of any order or action taken or about to be taken in pursuance of the powers conferred by or under the Act by the Gram Panchayat of Lankala Koderu, suit cannot be entertained by the District Court. If any action is taken otherwise than in accordance with the procedure under the Act, it can be called in question in any Court which has got territorial jurisdiction.
3. In order to resolve the controversy, it is appropriate to have a look at Section 22-A of the Act.
22-A : Bar of Jurisdiction :-No order passed or provisions of this Act, shall be called in question in any Court, in any suit, or application; and no injunction shall be granted by any Court except District Court in respect of any action taken or about to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.
4. Section 22-A was inserted by Act.22/2002. According to Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting Act.22/ 2002, disqualification of the member under Sections 19, 19-A, 19-B, 20, 20-A and 20-B under Chapter-I of the Act shall be decided by the District Judge having jurisdiction. Barring the jurisdiction of any Court except the District Court in respect of any action taken or about to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act, which implies that jurisdiction conferred on the District Judge against the action taken in respect of any power conferred under the Act is only with regard to the disqualification but not with regard to powers under Chapter-H, wherein Section 45(l)(i) adumbrates the Gram Panchayat to carry out repair and maintenance of buildings vested in the Gram Panchayat land of all public roads in the village and cause ways on such roads etc. If any person is aggrieved by such action of the Gram Panchayat under Chapter-H, he may institute suit against the said Gram Panchayat after issuing notice as contemplated under Section 138-A of the Act before the Court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of controversy. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge in returning the plaint for presentation before the Court having jurisdiction over the matter, do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, which requires to be corrected in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
5. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the revision petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedies as are available to her in accordance with law.