Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 687 (AP)

S. Rajasekhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2020-10-20

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2020
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent by marking with Red Colour on the copies of Adangal as well as 1-B pertaining to the agricultural lands of the Petitioner to an extent of Ac. 5-00 cents situated in Sy. No. 131/1A of Pellakur Village and Mandal, Sri. Patti Sriramulu, Nellore District and thereby creating a cloud on his property without issuing any notice without passing any order and without having any power or authority is arbitrary violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and accordingly set aside in so far as marking with Red Colour on the copies of Adangal as well as 1-B of the lands belongs to the Petitioner to an extent of Ac. 5-00 cents in Sy. No. 131/1A of Pellakuru Village and Mandal, Sri. Potti Sriramulu Nellore District and consequently and consequently direct the 4th respondent to issue Digitally signed copies of Adangal and 1B pertaining to the lands of the Petitioner to an extent Ac. 5-00 cents situated in Sy. No. 131/1A of Pellakur Village and Mandal, Sri. Patti Sriramulu Nellore District by deleting the Red Colour marking.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, in the year 1969, the land to an extent of Ac. 5.04 cents in Sy. No. 131/1 of Pellakur Village and Mandal was assigned by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Pellakur in favour of one E. Bhasker Naidu, S/o. E. Swamy Naidu under Freedom Fighter's quota. Subsequently in the year 1970 the said original assignee alienated the said land to one Papa Naidu. Subsequently in the year 1973, the said Papa Naidu sold away the subject lands to one Bathina Narasaiah through registered sale deed. Again on 20-2-2007 the purchaser Bathina Narasaiah in turn alienated the land to an extent of Ac. 5.04 cents in favour of Nagati Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy through a Registered sale deed for valuable sale consideration. 3. Thereupon the then Tahsildar, Pellakur initiated action under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition on Transfers) Act, 1977 and resumed the land to the government. But before resuming the land, Form-II Notice was not issued to the purchaser of Nagati Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy. 3. Thereupon the then Tahsildar, Pellakur initiated action under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition on Transfers) Act, 1977 and resumed the land to the government. But before resuming the land, Form-II Notice was not issued to the purchaser of Nagati Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy. Thereafter in the year 2008 Tahsildar passed orders assigned the said land in favour of the legal heirs of the original assignee i.e. his wife and daughter at the rate of Ac. 2-52 cents each. Though the Tahsildar passed resumption order and assigned in favour of legal heirs of the original assignee, the land is in possession of the Nagati Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy and he is cultivating the lands by raising paddy crop. 4. On coming to know the action of the Tahsildar in making division of the subject land and granting assignments in favour of legal heirs of the original assignee equally, the said purchaser, Nagati Vijaya Bhasker Reddy, filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Gudur, requesting to cancel the assignments made in favour of them. Subsequently he also filed W.P. No. 21529 of 2008. Thereupon, on 13-09-2008 this Court granted Interim order vide WPMP No. 28121/2008 and directed the respondents to maintain Status Quo as on date. On 11-10-2010 the original Assignee E. Baskar Naidu also filed a representation before the District Collector, Nellore stating that the said Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy is obstructing cultivation of the land and praying to consider their case. Thereupon, on 10-12-2010 the Joint Collector. Nellore passed orders by directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur to dispose of the appeal filed by Nagati Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy and also directed the Tahsildar to restore the possession of the land to Nagati Vijayabhaskar Reddy as per the directions of this Court and also make necessary entries in the revenue records. Pursuant to the orders of the Joint Collector, Nellore, on 20-05-2011 the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, passed orders by disposing of the appeal filed by the Nagati Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy stating that the matter is subjudice with the Judicial Forum and the Revenue Department has no role to play this juncture by directing the Tahsildar to implement the orders passed by the Judicial Forum only. On 27-12-2014, the wife and daughter of the original assignee came to the office of the Tahsildar and made a statement to the effect that they are permanent residents of Pichatur village and Mandal of Chittoor District and as the lands are situated in Pellakur Village, the lands are situated in Pellakur Village of Nellore. Accordingly, the subject lands could not be cultivated, further the subject lands were granted under the Freedom Fighter's quota, the assignees can alienate the same, further the said lands were legally purchased by Nagati Vijayabhaskar Reddy, he is in possession of the same, cultivating the said lands and accordingly they requested the Tahsildar to cancel the assignments made in their favour and also handed over the same to the Tahsildar. Further they have also informed that they have undertaken not to prefer any appeal against the action in handing over of the lands to Vijaya Bhasker Reddy. 5. After execution of the said undertaking by the legal heirs of the original assignee, the said purchaser of the land Nagati Vijaya Bhasker Reddy is in possession and enjoyment of the same without there being any objection by third parties. Further his name was also entered in the revenue records such as Adangal and 1-B Register. Apart from that, he used to pay cist to the government from the year 2008. As such, it is made clear that the said Nagati Vijaya Bhasker Reddy became the absolute owner of the subject land and he is in possession of the same without there being any objection from the parties. While so on 02-07-2020, the said Nagati Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy sold away the said land to an extent of Ac. 5-00 cents to the petitioner by executing registered sale deed for a total sale consideration of Rs. 34,15,000/-. 6. After purchase of the said land, the petitioner filed application before the fourth respondent under Section 5-A under A.P. Rights in Laudand Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 and requested him to update the records by mutating his name in the place of my vendor Nagati Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Accordingly on 17-08-2020 the fourth respondent updated the records and entered petitioner name in the Adangal as well as in 1-B Register and also uploaded in web land. While so, all of sudden the fourth respondent has put a Red mark on the copies of Adangal as well as 1-B and uploaded the same in the web land on 25-08-2020. Further in the copy of 1-B itself it was stated that Red Colour indicates digitally unsigned records, the Orange Colour indicates disputed survey numbers and Dark Orange colour indicates Notional khata number. But, the action of the fourth respondent in marking with Red Colour on the copies of the Adangal as well as I-B is illegal, as the fourth respondent did not issue any notice or opportunity before taking decision. Hence, the present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the fourth respondent in marking with Red Colour in Adangal as well as 1-B pertaining to the agricultural land of the Petitioner to an extent of Ac. 5-00 cents situated in Sy. No. 131/1A of Pellakur Village and Mandal, Sri. Patti Sriramulu, Nellore District. 7. The only grievance of this petitioner is that the property of this petitioner in an extent of Ac. 5-00 cents in Sy. No. 131-IA of Pellakur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, is kept under disputed land register. Keeping the property in disputed register is not in quarrel. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that, since the dispute is pending before the competent court, the property is kept in the disputed land register. He has drawn attention of this Court to Rule 9(1)(iv) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, where the Recording Authority shall not pass any order for the change of registry or splitting of joint pattas, unless the recording authority is satisfied that the change of registry or splitting of joint patta is not in contravention of any of the provisions of: (1) The Andhra Pradesh and Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural) Holdings Act, 1973 (Act 1 of 1973). (2) The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Central Act 33 of 1976). (3) The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (9 of 1977). 9. (2) The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Central Act 33 of 1976). (3) The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (9 of 1977). 9. In view of Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, in respect of cases falling under Rule 9(1)(a)(i), the Mandal Revenue Officer shall hold a summary enquiry as to who has the right to succeed to the property of the deceased registered holder, according to the principles of the Law of Succession which govern the case and give notice to all persons known or believed to be interested to the effect that the registry will be made in the name of the person found to be entitled, unless a declaration is filed, within three months from the date of the notice, by any person objecting to the registry, stating that he has instituted a suit in a Civil Court to establish his superior title and an authenticated copy of the plaint in the suit is produced. If no declaration is filed, the registry should be made as stated in the notice, at the expiration of three months. If a declaration is filed, the result of the suit should be awaited before taking further action. 10. Therefore, the words “a notice to all persons known or believed to be interested to the effect that the registry will be made” assumes importance in the present case. According to the petitioner, no notice was issued to this petitioner, the respondent also did not dispute the contention of petitioner about failure to issue notice. Therefore, on the ground of violation of procedure prescribed under Rule 9(1)(c)(ii), the order challenged is liable to be set-aside, without further going into the merits of the case. Therefore, placing the property of this petitioner in disputed register without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) is an illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside. Hence, on the ground of violation of Rule 9(1)(c)(ii), the order placing this petitioner's property in disputed register is hereby set-aside, declaring the action of the fourth respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 11. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 12. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.