Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 410 (AP)

Gottumukkala Rama Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-07-09

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. One Gottumukkala Rama Devi, filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 3 and 4 in not issuing pattadar pass books duly mutating her name in the Revenue Records in spite of applications which are pending for consideration and further action of the respondents in unduly interfering with the possession and threatening to dispossess from her agricultural land in an extent of Ac.0.30cts in Sy.No.255 Jakkampudi village, Vijayawada Rural Krishna District is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the procedure established under Law while directing the respondents not to interfere and dispossess the petitioner from her land of an extent of Ac.0.30 cts in Sy.No.255 Jakkampudi village, Vijayawada Rural Krishna District. 2. The case of the petitioner in precise is that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the agriculture land of an extent of Ac.0.30 cents situated in Sy.No.255, Jakkampudi Village, Vijayawada Rural, and the same was assigned to her by granting D-Form patta by the then Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar vide proceedings RCB.No.428/2003 dated 15.03.2004. Since then, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property cultivating the same raising different crops, eking out her livelihood. The petitioner is paying land revenue to the revenue department for the subject land. 3. The name of the petitioner is mutated in the revenue records in the coloumn provided for possession and cultivation in the Adangal/Pahani. Thus, the Adangal/Pahani is sufficient to establish her possession and enjoyment. 4. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner approached respondent No.3 for issue of pattadar pass book and title deed while requesting to mutate her name in the revenue records regarding her possession and enjoyment by submitting an application in the year 2018 and 2019 through Meeseva. But the applications were not disposed of by respondent No.3 in accordance with law. When the petitioner made a request personally to dispose of the application submitted through Meeseva and survey is required to be conducted for issue of Pattadar passbook in her favour. 5. But the applications were not disposed of by respondent No.3 in accordance with law. When the petitioner made a request personally to dispose of the application submitted through Meeseva and survey is required to be conducted for issue of Pattadar passbook in her favour. 5. Respondent No.4 under the guise of verification, issued notice dated 08.02.2019 to the petitioner, informing that on the basis of application for mutation of her name in the revenue records, the Tahsildar, Vijayawada Rural, verified the records, found that as per revenue records, the land in an extent of Ac.0.39 cents in Sy.No.255 is classified as “Puntha Poramboke”, NH5 (Bypass) road is laid in the said land, and also informed the petitioner to apply for sub-division duly making an application through Meeseva and that after due verification of records, more particularly assignment register, the patta RCB 428/2003 dated 15.03.2004, pattadar pass book would be issued in accordance with law. 6. On receipt of such information, the petitioner submitted another application dated 03.07.2018 through Meeseva for conducting survey. Accordingly, surveyor confirmed the earlier survey, submitted a report again stating that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land of an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.255 of Jakkampudi village and demarcated the extent in the plan and left over Ac.0.09 cents out of total extent of Ac.0.39 cents, issued survey report with demarcation of the subject property in Sy.No.255. 7. Respondent No.3 informed the petitioner that patta will be granted on verification of survey report based on the revenue records. The petitioner is roaming around the office continuously, but respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not take any action without any justifiable or reasonable cause, but protracting the proceedings unduly for no reason. Therefore, the respondents disowned their duty in disposing of the applications of the petitioner submitted through Meeseva. 8. While the matter stood thus, respondent Nos.3 and 4 interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property, thereby causing obstruction to cultivate the land by sending their staff. Recently, in the last week of May, 2021, staff of the respondents tried to interfere, but the same was resisted. 9. Therefore, inaction of the respondents in disposal of the applications submitted through Meeseva and action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and their staff in interfering with the possession is illegal, arbitrary, requested to grant relief as claimed in the petition. 10. 9. Therefore, inaction of the respondents in disposal of the applications submitted through Meeseva and action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and their staff in interfering with the possession is illegal, arbitrary, requested to grant relief as claimed in the petition. 10. Respondents did not file any counter, but placed on record written instructions received by the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue from the Tahsildar, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, dated 10.06.2021, wherein it is submitted as follows: “It is submitted that the petitioners prayed the Hon'ble High Court to issue orders to direct the respondents 3 to 4 not to dispossess the petitioners from their land in an extent of Ac.0.30 Cts in RS.No.255 of Jakkampudi Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal and as per the R.S.R of Jakkampudi Village the land measuring an extent of Ac.0.39 Cts in RS.No.255 is classified as Government Poramboke “Puntha” (Road). As per the R.S.R of Jakkampudi Village the land measuring an extent of Ac.0.39 Cts in RS.No.255 is classified as Government Poramboke “Puntha”(Road). As per the F.M.B, it clearly mentioned with Topo detail as road. As per the Adgangal an extent of Ac.0.39 Cts in R.S.No.255 of Jakkampudi Village was noted as “Puntha"(Road) in Pattadar and Enjoyer Columns. In the Mutation Applications filed by petitioner submitting the D.Patta, which was not entered in Mandal Assignment Register, hence, it reveals that the D.Patta was not issued by this Office and also knowing that she is submitting false and fabricated documents lo Mutate her name in Revenue Records. The petitioner was not in the possession of said land, since the said land was using for approach road by surrounding formers to transport their crop Yielding.” 11. Based on the written instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue requested to dismiss the writ petition. 12. During hearing, Sri P.Anand Seshu, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that undue interference of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and their staff with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary and the action of the respondents in keeping the applications submitted by the petitioner dated 03.06.2018 and 19.01.2019 pending, is a serious illegality and it is nothing but disowning the responsibility to discharge their duties. Such arbitrary inaction of the respondents in disposing the applications of the petitioner and action of the respondents in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property is violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, requested to issue a direction as claimed in the petition. 13. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that the alleged patta is a fabricated document and that the petitioner was never in possession of the property. 14. However, the land in Sy.No.255 of Jakkapudi Village is classified as Government Poramboke “Puntha”, and even the F.M.B also disclosed the topography of the land in R.S.No.255 of Jakkampudi village as “Punta”. Adangal copies and Re-Settlement Register also disclosed that it is classified as “Punta”. Hence, the question of assigning the subject land to the petitioner, her possession and enjoyment does not arise, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 15. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also placed on record Mandal Surveyor report, Re-Settlement Register of Jakkampudi village, F.M.B and copy of Adangal dated 10.06.2021 to establish that the land is classified as “puntha” and now, by- pass road is passing through the subject land, which is already laid. 16. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner made application through Meeseva vide application No.RMU011800757919 dated 03.06.2018 and application No.RMU011901854845 dated 19.01.2019 by paying requisite fee, for mutation of her name in the revenue records, and copies of those applications are also placed on record by the petitioner. Those applications are required to be disposed of within 30 working days from the date of application. But, no action was taken as on date on the applications and no endorsement was made on the applications of the petitioner either by mutating her name or rejecting her claim for mutation as mandated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act (for short “the Act”) by duly following the procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the Act read with Rule 19 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, by issuing notice in Form VIII. 17. Keeping the applications of the petitioner, submitted through authorised mode, pending is nothing but inaction on the part of respondent No.3. 17. Keeping the applications of the petitioner, submitted through authorised mode, pending is nothing but inaction on the part of respondent No.3. Though, respondent No.3 is under obligation to dispose of such applications by following the procedure prescribed under law, he kept the same pending for more than two years, such inaction can be described as arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, respondent No.3 shall be directed to dispose of the applications dated 03.06.2018 and 19.01.2019 submitted by the petitioner though Meeseva, in accordance with law, within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 18. Coming to the claim of right over the subject property by issue of D-Form patta vide Rcb.No.428/2003 dated 15.03.2004 by the Tahsildar to the petitioner, the Photostat copy of the patta is placed on record to establish that an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in Survey No.255 of Jakkampudi village was assigned to the petitioner subject to certain conditions enumerated therein as she is a landless poor person. The petitioner also placed on record copy of Pattadar Adangal to show that the land in an extent of Ac.0.39 cents in Sy.No.255 of Jakkampud village is classified as “Poramboke”. In column No.12 of the Pattadar Adangal, which is meant for mentioning details of ‘father/husband name of pattadar’ it is mentioned as ‘Puntha’. Similarly, in column No.13, which is meant for ‘enjoyer name’, it is mentioned as “Puntha”, without mentioning the name of the petitioner. The printout of pattadar adangal was taken on 07.06.2021. 19. Conveniently, in the translated copy, in the column meant for land details, it is mentioned ‘assignment land’. Therefore, translated copy filed along with the petition is not true translation of original adangal. Similarly, manual Adangal for Fasli 1416, which is corresponding Gregorian calendar year 2006, would show that the land is being cultivated raising black gram. 20. However, in column No.13, the enjoyer’s name is mentioned as Gottumukkala Ramadevi, the petitioner herein. Thereafter, no document is filed to show that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property, more particularly as on the date of filing the writ petition. 21. Copy of F.M.B. is also placed on record by the petitioner as well as respondent No.3. Thereafter, no document is filed to show that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property, more particularly as on the date of filing the writ petition. 21. Copy of F.M.B. is also placed on record by the petitioner as well as respondent No.3. According to the said document produced by the petitioner, the land of an extent of Ac.0.30 cents is identified, but the F.M.B. copy by respondent No.3 disclosed the topography of R.S.No.255 as road. Thus, there is any amount of discrepancy with regard to the nature of the land. 22. In any view of the matter, the basic register, which disclosed the nature of the land is Re-settlement Register of the village. Copy of the Re-settlement Register prepared on 07.09.1932 is placed on record by the respondents, which would show that the Sy.No.255 is classified as “Puntha”. Therefore, in ordinary course of events, Puntha (road) cannot be assigned to the landless poor under Revenue Board Standing Order 15. But the petitioner claiming right over the land classified as ‘puntha’ by way of assignment. This Court cannot decide the genuineness and legality of the patta granted in favour of the petitioner in the present proceedings in view of the limited request made by the petitioner. Hence, I find that it is not a fit case to decide the nature of the right claimed by the petitioner in the present proceedings. 23. As the petitioner filed the present writ petition alleging that respondent Nos.3, 4 and their staff interfering with her possession and enjoyment, it is for her to establish that she is in possession and enjoyment of the property as on date by producing necessary documentary evidence like cultivation account, Adangal No.3, Adangal No.2, which would disclose the details of the person, who is cultivating the subject land and the details of the person, who is paying land revenue, but no adangal No.3 for Fasli 1430 is placed on record. Hence, the petitioner miserably failed to establish that she is in possession and enjoyment of the property by producing satisfactory evidence as on the date of filing the writ petition. In the absence of proof, it is difficult for this Court to issue a direction against respondent Nos.3 and 4 and their staff not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in R.S.No.255 of Jakkampudi village. In the absence of proof, it is difficult for this Court to issue a direction against respondent Nos.3 and 4 and their staff not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in R.S.No.255 of Jakkampudi village. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that by-pass road is already laid through the subject land, which is classified as Puntha as per Re-Settlement Register and other records available in the revenue department. In the absence of proof as to actual possession and enjoyment of the property, it is difficult for this Court to decide who is in actual possession as on date to prevent interference of respondent Nos.3 and 4 by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since it is a disputed question of fact. Hence, the petitioner may approach the Civil Court by filing appropriate proceedings for appropriate relief. Hence, I find no ground to issue a direction against respondent Nos.3, 4 and their staff to restrain them from interfering with the alleged possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and the same is hereby rejected as it is devoid of merits. 24. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that it is appropriate to direct respondent No.3 to dispose of the applications dated 03.06.2018 and 19.01.2019 submitted by the petitioner and the application No.DER011801211015 dated 03.07.2018 submitted through Meeseva for sub-division of land, within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, in accordance with law while rejecting the request of the petitioner to restrain respondent Nos.3, 4 and their staff from interfering with the possession of the petitioner while granting liberty to approach Civil Court as the possession of the petitioner is in dispute as on the date of filing the writ petition. 25. 25. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part declaring the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in not disposing the applications of the petitioner dated 03.06.2018, 19.01.2019 and the application No.DER011801211015 dated 03.07.2018 submitted through Meeseva for sub-division of land as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300 (A) of the Constitution of India while directing respondent No.3 to dispose of the applications of the petitioner dated 03.06.2018, 19.01.2019 and the application No.DER011801211015 dated 03.07.2018 submitted through Meeseva for sub-division of land, within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the request of the petitioner to restrain respondent Nos.3, 4 and their staff from interfering with the possession of the petitioner is rejected. No costs. 26. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.