Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 439 (AP)

Jampani Seshagiri Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-07-16

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2021
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “....to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondents 2 to 4 in not deleting the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac. 1.69 cents in Sy No. 409-C and Ac. 0.31 cents in Sy No. 409-E, total admeasuring Ac. 2.00 cents of land in Rajupalem Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District from the List of Prohibited Properties in spite of orders of the District Collector in Proceedings E. No. E5/268550/2020 dated 09.11.2020 and Proceedings E. No. E5/267427/2020 dated 26.01.2021 and 04.05.2021 and also trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land and proposing to allot the land to poor persons under the Navaratnalu Scheme, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct Respondent No. 4 to delete the land of petitioner from the List of Prohibited Properties and pass such other order...” 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 1.69 cents in Sy. No. 409-C and Ac. 0.31 cents in Sy. No. 409-E, total admeasuring Ac. 2.00 cents of land in Rajupalem Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District and the same property was devolved upon him after death of his ancestors, which was acquired under a registered partition deed took place in the year 1957. The petitioner's father and brothers have divided the properties under registered a partition deed, dated 17.09.1957. By virtue of the said partition, the petitioner himself and his brothers viz. Veeraiah, Pedda Venkateswarlu, Chinna Venkateswarlu got 1/3rd extent in northern side Ac. 7.06 cents out of Ac. 14.12 cents bearing Sy. Nos. 409/B and 409/D of Rajupalem Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District. The petitioner's family has also surrendered the excess land before Land Ceiling Authorities vide File No. CC/685/ADK/75. The petitioner's land was also included in the list of prohibited property notified under Section 22-A of the Act. Hence, he filed an application for deletion of the subject property from the List of Prohibited Properties. 3. The petitioner's family has also surrendered the excess land before Land Ceiling Authorities vide File No. CC/685/ADK/75. The petitioner's land was also included in the list of prohibited property notified under Section 22-A of the Act. Hence, he filed an application for deletion of the subject property from the List of Prohibited Properties. 3. On the application of petitioner, the District Collector addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, 4th respondent herein on 09.11.2020 and 04.05.2021 directing him to send revised list of properties notified under Section 22-A of the Act, but “the 4th respondent did not take any action so far. Therefore, the inaction on the part of 4th respondent is now questioned before this Court in the present writ petition in compliance of the direction issued by the 2nd respondent against the 4th respondent in view of the representation submitted by the petitioner to delete the land from the list under Section 22-A of the Act. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions in writing from the Tahsildar's office submitted that the land in dispute is a dotted land. An application has to be made to the competent authority for deletion of the land from the dotted lands list in RSR as per the provisions of the Act. But, application was made to the District Collector, who in turn addressed a letter referred above to the Tahsildar. Therefore in the absence of any application to the Tahsildar as per the provisions of Pradesh Dotted Lands (Updation in Re-Settlement Register) Act, 2017 4th respondent is not under obligation to send the revised list to be notified under Section 22-A of the Act. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue also relied on the order passe by this Court in W.P. No. 1583 of 2020, dated 28.01.2020. Based on the law declared by this Court, the learned Assistant Government Pleader requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. During hearing, Sri. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition. Based on the law declared by this Court, the learned Assistant Government Pleader requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. During hearing, Sri. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue based on the order referred above in W.P. No. 1583 of 2020 contended that an application shall be made to the Tahsildar for deletion of the land from the dotted lands list and in the absence of any appropriate application by the petitioner the same cannot be deleted and the Tahsildar is not under obligation to send the revised list as directed by the District Collector. 6. As seen from the material on record, Sri. Jampani Pedda Venkateswarlu (petitioner) made a representation, dated 02.11.2020 for deletion of land from the list notified in Annexure-V of 22A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908 and that the District Collector, 2nd respondent herein addressed a letter to Tahsildar, Martur, dated 09.11.2020 which runs as follows: “I invite attention to the reference cited. In the reference cited, Sri. Jampani Peda Venkateswarlu S/o Anamthaiah filed a representation and requested for the deletion of the land in Sy. No. 409-C to an extent of Ac. 1.69 cents, in S. No. 409-E to an extent of Ac. 0.31 cents and in Sy. No. 102-B2 to an extent of Ac. 0.42 cents which is situated in Rajupalem Village, Martur Mandal. It is to inform that, the above survey numbers previously placed in the Annexure-V of 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908. The above said survey numbers are proposed for deletion in the revised Annexure-V is not submitted to this office. Similar letter was addressed by the District Collector to the Tahsildar on 04.05.2021 repeating the same request, but the Tahsildar did not take any steps at least to respond to the request made by the District Collector, But, surprisingly, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on behalf of the Tahsildar, 4th respondent herein on receipt of information from him contended that the application has to be filed b the petitioner for deletion of the land from the dotted lands list and in the absence of application, the Tahsildar is not under obligation to comply the direction. The District Collector is superior officer in the administration in the Revenue Department, who is head of the district and the Tahsildar is a subordinate working under him, but the Tahsildar is not willing to comply the direction issued by the District Collector irrespective of legality of the application/ representation made by the petitioner, which shows disregard of the orders of the superior officer by the subordinate office which amounts to misconduct within the definition of Clause (5) of A.P. Civil Service (CCA) Rules. But, no action has been taken by the 2nd respondent against the 4th respondent so far though he plighted the direction issued by the superior officer in utter disregard. Such conduct of an officer is questionable. The State and its acts are to be tested on the principle of public trust and good governance.” 7. The word governance is defined as “the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority in the management of a country's affairs at all levels. Governance comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their political rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences. Therefore, participation in administration by both men and women is the key cornerstone of good governance. Participation may be direct or indirect. Good Governance requires fair legal frameworks that are enforced impartially. It also requires protection of human rights, independent and imperial police force, and bureaucracy. It means that information is freely available and directly accessible to those who will be affected by such decisions and their enforcement, maintaining utmost transparency. 8. Good Governance as a democratic exigency, in order to rid corruption, provides rights, the means, and the capacity to participate in the decisions that affect their lives and to hold their governments accountable for what they do, since the basic features or elements of good governance, it is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. It assures that corruption is minimized, the views' of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsible to the present and fixture needs of the society. 9. It assures that corruption is minimized, the views' of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsible to the present and fixture needs of the society. 9. But, in the present case a subordinate officer i.e. 4th respondent herein who is a subordinate officer totally in disregard of the direction issued by the 2nd respondent i.e. District Collector, did not comply the direction issued by the District Collector. On the other hand, he invented a different story stating that the land is dotted land and an application has to be made to the Tahsildar and not a representation to the District Collector. If really, the District Collector is not competent, nothing prevented the Tahsildar to address a letter stating that the said Tahsildar alone is competent to receive Mee Seva application on payment of requisite fee, but the Tahsildar maintained silence for almost seven (07) months without even addressing a letter to the District Collector pointing out his incompetence. Therefore, the conduct of 4th respondent is against the principle of good governance and the inaction of 4th respondent to respond to the letter addressed by the District Collector, 2nd respondent herein dated 09.11.2020 and 04.05.2021 is arbitrary and insubordination of higher authority treating the higher authority insubordinate. 10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has drawn the attention of this Court to the order in W.P. No 1583 of 2020, dated 28.01.2020, wherein this Court held that to remove the lands from the dotted lands list under the Act an application has to be made in Form-VI-A. There is no dispute regarding requirement to make an application but that is not the question here, the question is only about disregard of the order/direction issued by the superior to the subordinate officer i.e. by the 2nd respondent/District Collector to 4th respondent/Tahsildar. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above referred order has no application directly to the present facts of the case. 11. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed declaring the inaction of 4th respondent as illegal and arbitrary and it is nothing but insubordination of a superior officer. Consequently, 4th respondent/Tahsildar is directed to comply direction issued by 2nd respondent/District Collector within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, 4th respondent/Tahsildar is directed to comply direction issued by 2nd respondent/District Collector within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.