Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 900 (AP)

Ch. Gopinath v. District Collector, Visakhapatnam

2013-10-13

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2013
ORDER The woes of the petitioner, an Ex-Serviceman (retired as Leading Seaman (CD-3) in Indian Navy) appeared to have started with his securing an assignment in respect of Ac.1.73 cents of dry land in Survey No. 143/4 of Paradesipalem, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal in the year 1989. 2. The petitioner approached respondent No. 3 time and again for mutation of his name in the record of rights. As his request was not heeded to by the subordinate officials, he has approached respondent No.1 who vide his order, dated 3.5.2005, directed respondent No.3 to take necessary steps on the petitioner's request. As there was no response to the petitioner's request even thereafter, he has filed WP No. 24217 of 2006. The writ petition was initially dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order, dated 29.11.2006. WA No. 11 of 2007 filed against the said order was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 4.1.2007, and the case was remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal. 3. In the said writ petition, respondent No. 3 filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the official respondents, wherein it was inter alia stated that Paradesipalem Village was an estate village in Vizianagaram Jamin Estate and that the same was taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948, and that following the survey operations, the extent of Ac.1.70 cents in Survey No. 143/4 is classified as assessed waste (gayalu) in the settlement record. It was further averred that in the permanent settlement records and 10(1) Adangal, the petitioner's name does not find a place as pattadar, but his name was entered in Village Account No. 3 as pattadar and enjoyer in Column Nos. 12 and 13. It was also averred that DR File No. 24/1989, under which the petitioner claims assignment is not available and therefore, the genuineness of the patta claimed by the petitioner cannot be accepted for the present. 12 and 13. It was also averred that DR File No. 24/1989, under which the petitioner claims assignment is not available and therefore, the genuineness of the patta claimed by the petitioner cannot be accepted for the present. The counter-affidavit further stated that the photo copy of the purported patta filed by the petitioner disclosed that the same was issued and signed by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, by name, Sri D.J. Prakasam who has since retired from service and that on verification of the signature of the Mandal Revenue Officer on the copy of the DKT patta, it was found that the same tallied with that of the signatures in the revenue records and that due to non-availability of the original file, no final decision is taken. 4. In the light of the above averments in the counter-affidavit, by order, dated 21.10.2008, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to produce the original patta/assignment before respondent No. 3 to enable him to compare the signature of the then Mandal Revenue Officer thereon with that of his signatures found in the other revenue records and thereupon, respondent No. 3 shall undertake the said exercise and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. The learned Judge further directed that if after comparison of the signatures, respondent No. 3 comes to the conclusion that the signature of the then Mandal Revenue Officer on the assignment proceedings is genuine, he shall take appropriate steps to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the record of rights in respect of the land in question. 5. Even after disposal of the WP No. 24217/2006, the petitioner's agony continued. He went on making representations after representations to all the revenue officials for redressal of his grievance. Copies of those representations have been filed and marked as Exs.P14 to P36. Obviously after being convinced that he will not receive justice from the respondents, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 6. After disposal of the above mentioned writ petition, respondent No. 3 instead of confining his exercise to the comparison of the signatures as directed by this Court, embarked upon a roving enquiry. He has assigned to the Mandal Revenue Inspector the task of examining Sri D.J. Prakasam, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, and Sri T.V. Subba Rao, the Senior Assistant of the time. He has assigned to the Mandal Revenue Inspector the task of examining Sri D.J. Prakasam, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, and Sri T.V. Subba Rao, the Senior Assistant of the time. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Inspector has recorded the statements of both the then Mandal Revenue Officer and the Senior Assistant and submitted a detailed report in R. No. 1299/08 SPI.RI, dated 8.2.2009. The petitioner, who obtained this report under the Right to Information Act, 2005, filed a copy of the same. A perusal of this report shows that an extensive enquiry was undertaken by the Mandal Revenue Inspector at the instance of respondent No. 3. The report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector incorporated in the report of respondent No. 3 would show that the Mandal Revenue Inspector met Sri D.J. Prakasam, who retired as a Deputy Collector, at his residence on 3.1.2009 and enquired about the genuineness of the D-Form patta stated to have been issued to the petitioner. That on perusing the original patta, Sri D.J. Prakasam has asked the Mandal Revenue Inspector to enquire with Sri T.V. Subba Rao, the then Senior Assistant who prepared the said patta and appended his side initial on the patta. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Inspector met Sri T.V. Subba Rao, who retired as Tahsildar, residing at Visalakshinagar, and showed him the original patta. The Mandal Revenue Inspector has recorded the deposition of Sri T.V. Subba Rao wherein he has admitted that he prepared the patta in his handwriting and subscribed his side initial on the patta; that on the instructions of the then District Collector Sri J.P. Murthy, IAS, Sri D.J. Prakasam has instructed him to prepare the said patta and that thereafter, Sri D.J. Prakasam has signed on the patta issued to the petitioner. He has further deposed that, that was the only patta which was issued during his tenure for agricultural purpose. That the Mandal Revenue Inspector thereafter again met Sri D.J. Prakasam at the latter's residence and after perusing the statement of Sri T.V. Subba Rao and the original D-Form patta, Sri D.J. Prakasam has confirmed that the signature on the original patta was of him and that he has personally made an endorsement to that effect in his own handwriting below the statement of Sri T.V. Subba Rao. After referring to the above facts, respondent No. 3 has stated that there was a fake claim by one Botta Tataiah that the said land was assigned to him. After referring to the relevant record, respondent No. 3 has concluded that the said land was not assigned to Botta Tataiah as reported in his office on 23.6.2006 and that an erroneous endorsement was made that the land was resumed due to violation of conditions. He further observed that the reports of the Mandal Revenue Inspector and the Surveyor clearly revealed that the land is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner whose D-Form patta was found genuine. Respondent No. 3 has therefore requested respondent No. 1 to issue instructions in the matter in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in WP No. 24217/2006. The said report was forwarded to respondent No. 1 through proceedings dated 14.10.2009 of respondent No. 2 who has also opined that in view of the detailed enquiry undertaken by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, there is no option except to implement the order of this Court. To the petitioner's misfortune, no decision was taken in this regard by respondent No. 1 driving him to file this writ petition. 7. Respondent No. 1 filed a counter-affidavit wherein he has pointed out the purported shortcoming in the enquiry of the Tahsildar by stating that while trying to ascertain the genuineness of the D-Form patta, the Tahsildar has not adopted the scientific methodology by comparing the signatures of the Mandal Revenue Officer on the D-Form patta produced by the petitioner with his admitted signatures by a Forensic Expert/Handwriting Expert and that the genuineness of the assignment was not corroborated by any document/revenue record. Respondent No. 1 therefore requested for grant of ten weeks time for taking further action. 8. In my opinion, the respondents have made a heavy weather of a simple situation. As noted above, this Court has directed respondent No. 3-Tahsildar to compare the signature on the original D-Form patta with that of the admitted signatures of the then Mandal Revenue Officer. No direction was given by this Court either to examine the then Mandal Revenue Officer or to send the signatures to a Forensic Expert. As noted above, this Court has directed respondent No. 3-Tahsildar to compare the signature on the original D-Form patta with that of the admitted signatures of the then Mandal Revenue Officer. No direction was given by this Court either to examine the then Mandal Revenue Officer or to send the signatures to a Forensic Expert. Be that as it may, respondent No. 3 has tried to play safe by entrusting the work of recording the statements of the then Mandal Revenue Officer and the Senior Assistant, whose purported signatures were found on the patta. The demeanour of the then Mandal Revenue Officer could be gauged from the fact that he was not prepared to confirm his signature till such time as the Senior Assistant whose initial was found on the DKT patta, confirmed that he has initialed the same. It is only thereafter that the then Mandal Revenue Officer has confirmed that he has signed the DKT patta and that the same is genuine. In the face of this unimpeachable evidence, I do not find any reason for respondent No. 1 to suspect the genuineness of the patta in question. However, in order to satisfy this Court's conscience, the learned Assistant Government Pleader was directed to produce the relevant file before the Court which contained the admitted signatures of Sri D.J. Prakasam, the then Mandal Revenue Officer. This Court also directed the learned Counsel for the petitioner to produce the original DKT patta. Both the learned Counsel have complied with these directions by producing the respective documents. 9. This Court has compared the signature on the original DKT patta produced by the petitioner with the admitted signatures of the then Mandal Revenue Officer in Rc.No.2402/85/A, dated 31.7.1988, Rc.No.3775/94/D, dated 13.12.1994 and Rc.No.244/91 RA, dated 7.12.1994. On a comparison, this Court is thoroughly convinced that the signatures on the DKT patta completely tally with the admitted signatures of the then Mandal Revenue Officer referred to above. No further proof of the genuineness of the DKT patta is needed than the enquiry report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector and the satisfaction of this Court on comparison of the signatures. The scientific methodology proposed to be adopted by respondent No. 1 is therefore not only uncalled for but also the same is contrary to the earlier order of this Court in WP No. 24217/2006. 10. The scientific methodology proposed to be adopted by respondent No. 1 is therefore not only uncalled for but also the same is contrary to the earlier order of this Court in WP No. 24217/2006. 10. Before parting with this case, this Court needs to place on record its thorough dissatisfaction on the manner in which the respondents have harassed the petitioner only for the reason that the relevant file was not available in the office of respondent No. 3. The respondents ought to have realised that the petitioner, an ex-Navy man, cannot be held to be responsible for the missing of the file and on that account there was no justification whatever for them to harass him for years on end. The respondents would do well to protect the interests of genuine claimants and refrain from causing harassment in the name of verifications and re-verifications. 11. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and issue pattadar passbook and title deed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. The respondents are saddled with costs of Rs. 10,000/- for dragging the petitioner to prolonged needless litigation. 12. As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, WPMP Nos. 33310 and 36595 of 2013 are disposed of as infructuous.