Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 673 (AP)

Polavarapu Vasudev v. Kundaravalli Devi Kumari

2018-09-12

K.VIJAYA LAKSHMI, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Ramesh Ranganathan, J. 1. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 7483 of 2004 dated 25.04.2014. The appellants herein are respondents 6 and 7 in the writ petition. They, along with the 11 petitioners in W.P. No. 15300 of 2008, claimed to have been allotted house sites by the Tahsildar, pursuant to which the appellants herein sought permission for construction of a building from Kanuru Gram Panchayat. While permission for construction of a building was accorded to the appellants herein, permission was refused to the 11 petitioners in W.P. No. 15300 of 2008. Claiming that they ought to have been granted permission to construct a building, these 11 individuals filed W.P. No. 15300 of 2008. By the common order dated 25.04.2014, W.P. No. 7483 of 2004 was disposed of, and W.P. No. 15300 of 2008 was dismissed. As the petitioners therein have chosen not to prefer any appeal, the order in W.P. No. 15300 of 2008 has attained finality. 2. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, Learned Counsel for the appellants, would submit that the appellants have preferred this appeal as they are aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single. Judge to the limited extent he held that they had been allotted house plots, by the Tahsildar, for extraneous reasons. 3. In the order under appeal, the Learned Single Judge observed that, since the subject lands were classified as "punta poramboke" in the revenue records and were set apart for a road, the Tahsildar lacked authority to assign these lands as house sites to the appellants; there was no evidence to show the existence of any record regarding assignment of land in favour of the appellants; and the very basis of the assignment was shown to be false. 4. During the pendency of W.P. No. 7483 of 2004, a Learned Single Judge of this Court had called for a report from the Sub-Collector regarding the genuineness of the assignment pattas granted in favour of the appellants. Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar had submitted a report, after having an enquiry caused, wherein it is recorded that an extent of Ac. 4. During the pendency of W.P. No. 7483 of 2004, a Learned Single Judge of this Court had called for a report from the Sub-Collector regarding the genuineness of the assignment pattas granted in favour of the appellants. Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar had submitted a report, after having an enquiry caused, wherein it is recorded that an extent of Ac. 0.29 cents of land, in R.S. No. 249/1A, was classified as "punta poramboke"; the original file, relating to the issue of house site pattas to the appellants, was not available in the office; however, the signature of the then Tahsildar (Sri P. Harinarayana) tallied with his signatures in the adangal of Kanur Village of Penamaluru Mandal; the pattas, said to have been issued to the appellants, were not correct; and there was no record, available in their office, for change of classification of land, in R.S. No. 249, from "punta poramboke" to "village site". 5. It is not even contended before us by Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, that lands, classified as punta poramboke, can be assigned as house sites. The grievance of the appellants, as contended by the learned counsel, is that they were unaware whether the subject lands could be assigned as house sites; it is because they are landless poor, that, the Tahsildar had assigned these house sites in their favour; and once it is admitted that the signature of the Tahsildar, on the pattas granted to the appellants, tallied with the signature in the other records, it is clear that the genuineness of the pattas is not in doubt; and the appellants cannot be faulted for misplacement of the assignment records in the office of the Tahsildar. 6. While both the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, would put forth their submissions on the genuineness of the pattas granted to the appellants, contending that an elaborate procedure is prescribed for assignment of house site pattas, under Paragraph 21 of the Board Standing Orders which requires several entries to be made in the records, it is wholly unnecessary for us to go into the genuineness or otherwise of the pattas granted to the appellants, since it is not in dispute that the subject land, which is classified as "punta poramboke", could not have been allotted as house sites in the first place. 7. 7. Without examining whether or not the house site pattas granted in favour of the appellants are genuine, we affirm the order of the Learned Single Judge to the limited extent he held that the subject lands could not have been assigned to the appellants as house sites, as they are classified as punta poramboke in the revenue records. The order of the Learned Single Judge is affirmed to the aforesaid extent, and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. 8. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, seeks a direction to the official respondents to allot the appellants alternative house sites. It would be wholly inappropriate for us to grant the appellants herein a relief extraneous to the relief sought for by the respondent-writ petitioners in the writ petition. Suffice it to make it clear that the order now passed by us shall not disable the appellants from making a request to the Government in this regard, and for the Government to examine their request in accordance with law. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.