Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 33 (AP)

Kommu Pedda Reddeppa v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2019-03-06

M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

body2019
ORDER : M. Seetharama Murti, J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking verbatim the following relief: "... to issue an order, direction or a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents/revenue officials in listing the land of the petitioner in Sy. No. 552/2B to an Extent-W of Acs 3.76 of Bandameedakammapalle Village of Madanapalle Mandal of Chittoor District in the list of Government lands under Section 22-A of the Registration Act without notice and without taking any objections from the writ petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the 4th respondent/Tahsildar, Madanapalle Mandal, encouraging and supporting the 5th respondent to encroach, grab and try to make constructions in the above land of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and consequently direct the revenue authorities to delete the land in Sy. No. 552/2 B to an extent of Acs. 3-76 of Bandameedakammapalle Village of Madanapalle Mandal of Chittoor District from the list of Government lands listed under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and also direct the respondents 4 and 5 not to encroach, grab, interfere and not to try to make any constructions in the above land of the writ petitioner forthwith and pass such other order or orders......" 2. I have heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner and of learned Government Pleader for Assignments appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and of Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned Counsel for the fifth respondent. The sixth respondent-Tahsildar, Madanapalle Mandal, is added as eo nominee party. Though notice was ordered and taken to the sixth respondent by the petitioner, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that return of the notice sent to the sixth respondent is awaited. As this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition at this stage, even before the service of notice on the sixth respondent, return or the notice sent to the sixth respondent need not be awaited. 3. I have perused the material record. 4. As this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition at this stage, even before the service of notice on the sixth respondent, return or the notice sent to the sixth respondent need not be awaited. 3. I have perused the material record. 4. In this writ petition, while making various allegations, the petitioner sought not only the relief for deletion of the subject lands from the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act'), but also a relief in the nature of a direction to the respondents 4 and 5 not to encroach, grab and try to make constructions in the subject land of the petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner specifically pleaded that the 4th respondent is encouraging and supporting the 5th respondent to encroach, grab and try to make constructions in the subject land of the petitioner. Be that as it may. 5. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 17.12.2018, through an Advocate, to the Joint Collector and get marked copies of the same to the other officers of the Revenue Department. In the said representation, the petitioner stated inter alia as follows:-The subject property was assigned prior to 1954. Therefore, it does not come within the purview of Section 22-A of the Act. Hence, the subject property has to be deleted from the said list of prohibited properties in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 575, dated 16.11.2018. Contending that the petitioner is entitled to consideration, of his request for deletion of the property from the prohibited list of properties, reliance is placed on a for by the petitioner was granted to the petitioners therein. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Assignments appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the official respondents are prepared consider and dispose of the afore-stated representation of the petitioner in accordance with the procedure established by law insofar as the said representation related to the request for deletion of the subject property from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Act, however, after examining the correctness of the contention of the petitioner that the subject property was assigned on patta prior to 1954. 7. 7. However learned Counsel for the petitioner strongly contended as follows:- 'Granting a relief directing respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner insofar as the request for deletion of the subject property from the prohibited list of property may not be sufficient and that in view of the allegations personally made against the 4th respondent-Tahasildar by impleading him as a eo nominee party, that is, as the 6th respondent, it is in the interests of justice, to grant a relief directing him not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property and not to encourage and support the 5th respondent in the matter of encroaching, grabbing and trying to make constructions in the subject property and that granting of such an order is necessary in view of the attitude of the 4th respondent.' 8. Learned Counsel for the fifth respondent submits that the fifth respondent is the General Power of Attorney of the original owner of the subject property and that he alienated the said property after writ orders were obtained in WP No. 5849 of 2017 and that the purchasers of the property in Survey No. 552/3 and 552/10 are necessary and proper parties and that the writ petition is filed without impleading them. 9. Admittedly, the 5th respondent is not having any interest in the property that was sold away; and, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the claim in this writ petition is with regard to the property in Sy. No. 552/2B. 10. It is pertinent to take note of the terms of G.O. Ms. No. 575, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 16.11.2018, whereby the Government ordered deletion of Government lands assigned prior to 18.6.1954, from the purview of Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908; and, also the Circular Memo No. 23241/Assn.-I/2014, dated 29.11.2018, whereby the District Collectors were requested to follow the guidelines for implementation of the orders issued in the afore-stated G.O. 11. Having given earnest consideration to the facts and submissions, this Court is of the considered view that no relief in the nature of injunction can be granted in this writ petition restraining the 4th respondent-Tahasildar, who is added as eo nominee party, that is, as the 6th respondent, as granting of a such relief requires examination of Issues of fact and resolution of a factual dispute. 12. 12. In the result, while holding that the writ petitioner is not entitled to the relief in the nature of injunction sought for against respondents 4 and 5, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent-District Collector to consider and dispose of, in strict accordance with the procedure established by law, the afore-stated representation of the petitioner insofar as the request for deletion of the subject property from the prohibited list of properties under Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The necessary exercise in the above regard shall be completed within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and decision taken thereon be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek a common law remedy, which the law permits, if so advised and so desires, insofar as the relief of injunction.