Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 677 (AP)

V. Challapa Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-10-20

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2021
ORDER : This 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 Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the orders dated 17/05/2021 in D.Dis.A/368/2020 passed by Respondent No.4, quash the same by declaring them as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, without jurisdiction, beyond the scope of the provision of the A.P. ROR Act, 1971 and consequently direct Respondent No.4 to mutate the name of petitioner for the land admeasuring Ac.10.52 cents in R.S.No.914 situated in Damineedu Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, issue Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds in favour of petitioner and pass such other order…” 2. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner’s grandfather along with his brother filed Claim Petition for grant of Ryotwari Joint Patta under Section 11(a) of Estate Abolition Act, 1948, before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor. As per the rules, the Assistant Settlement Officer has issued notices to the concerned, conducted enquiry, passed orders on 18.11.1966 vide proceedings in S.R.No.493/11(a)/64/PN/CCR by allowing the petition and granted joint Ryotwari Patta in favour of petitioner’s grandfather and his brother namely Gujjireddy @ Munuswami Reddy. In the said orders, it was categorically stated that petitioner’s grandfather along with his brother are enjoying the land for the past 35 years by cultivating and raising dry crops. By virtue of said orders, petitioner’s grandfather and his brother were in possession and enjoyment of the subject property, they were issued Pattadar pass books and title deeds in their favour. Said Gujjireddy @ Munuswami, who is brother of petitioner’s grandfather was unmarried. Petitioner’s grandfather and his brother Gujjireddy expired, thereupon, the petitioner’s father namely V.Venkateswara Reddy succeeded the entire estate. Petitioner’s father also died in the year 1995. At the time of demise of his father, the petitioner was an young boy, he was not aware of the land details and the documents pertaining to said land and he could not secure the documents. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for mutation of his name in respect of subject property in the revenue records and also made several representations to the revenue authorities. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for mutation of his name in respect of subject property in the revenue records and also made several representations to the revenue authorities. In pursuance of orders passed by this Court, 4th respondent issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to submit relevant documents. All of sudden, 4th respondent issued an endorsement, dated 17.05.2021 vide D.Dis.A/368/2020 refusing the claim of petitioner for mutating his name in revenue records for various extents of land in Sy.No.91/4 of Damineedu Village of Tirupati Rural Mandal. Said endorsement is now challenged on various grounds and one such ground is that non-compliance of proviso to Section 5(1) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. As the respondents did not comply proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act, the endorsement is liable to be set aside and requested to issue direction to the respondents as claimed in the writ petition. 3. During hearing, Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition, while drawing the attention of this Court to the pendency of other writ petition in W.P.No.7980 of 2020 before this Court, but he has distinguished the facts of above case and the facts of the present case. Such disputed fact in the present writ petition is irrelevant to give intimation under Section 4 of A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattdar Pass Books Act, 1991 and non-compliance of proviso to Section 5(1) of A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1991 besides other contentions. 4. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that since W.P.No.7980 of 2020 is pending before this Court, which is pertaining to same land, this matter is to be decided along with the other writ petition and requested to pass orders along with other writ petition. 5. As seen from the record, the petitioner submitted an intimation to the revenue authorities on acquiring right in agricultural land in compliance of Section 4(1) of the A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and on that endorsement, dated 17.05.2021 in A.Dis.No.368/2020 was issued by the Tahsildar/4th respondent refusing the request made by the petitioner. 6. 5. As seen from the record, the petitioner submitted an intimation to the revenue authorities on acquiring right in agricultural land in compliance of Section 4(1) of the A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and on that endorsement, dated 17.05.2021 in A.Dis.No.368/2020 was issued by the Tahsildar/4th respondent refusing the request made by the petitioner. 6. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly drawn the attention of this Court to proviso to Section 5(1) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and on the ground of non-compliance of proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act, the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside. 7. Here, no opportunity was afforded for making representation by the petitioner, who gave intimation about acquisition of right in land in compliance of proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act. 8. Principles of natural justice is imbeded in the proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act, but such principle of natural justice affording opportunity to the petitioner to make representation is not complied, and the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue made an attempt to submit that an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act is permitted against such an order of refusal and directed the petitioner to file appropriate appeal in terms of Section 5(5) of the Act. No doubt, an appeal would lie but that itself, is not a ground to reject the claim in the writ petition 10. Recently, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 334 summarized the following six principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court in the presence of an alternate remedy, despite availability of efficacious alternative statutory remedy under the Act. “28. The principles of law which emerge are that: (i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well; (ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. “28. The principles of law which emerge are that: (i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well; (ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person; (iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where a. the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; b. there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or c. the vires of a legislation is challenged; (iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law; (v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and (vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.” The same principles were reiterated by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in M/s. Magadh Sugar & Energy Limited v. The State of Bihar, Civil Appeal No.5728 of 2021 dated 24.09.2021. 11. Since the respondents failed to follow proviso to Section 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, which is the principle of natural justice, thereby entertainment of writ petition despite availability of statutory remedy is not an illegality. 11. Since the respondents failed to follow proviso to Section 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, which is the principle of natural justice, thereby entertainment of writ petition despite availability of statutory remedy is not an illegality. Hence, the contention of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue is rejected, as the respondents failed to comply the statutory procedure which is in the nature of compliance of principle of natural justice. 12. As discussed above, since the 4th respondent failed to follow the statutory procedure prescribed under the statute, the order is liable to be set aside, while remanding the matter to the 4th respondent to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law in compliance of proviso to Section 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending shall stand closed.