Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1031 (AP)

T. Venkata Subbaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-10-14

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2022
ORDER : Challenging the proceedings of the 3rd respondent, dated 15.11.2017, this Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner. 2. This Court has heard Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 5, the learned standing counsel for the 6th respondent and Smt. S. Pranathi, learned counsel for unofficial respondents. Extensive arguments were advanced by all the learned counsel in this matter. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of land which he has purchased vide Document No.1278 of 2010, dated 22.03.2010 from his vendor in a layout. It is submitted that the land was initially “agricultural” land which was converted into non-agriculture land on 23.01.2010. Thereafter, the land was converted into a layout on 08.02.2010 and an approved layout plan was given on 26.03.2010. Some part of the land was also mortgaged to the 6th respondent as a part of the approval of layout and later the mortgage was redeemed on 26.03.2010. It is submitted that the entire sequence of proceedings from conversion of the agriculture land into non-agriculture land, approval of layout etc., were ignored by the 3rd respondent in passing the impugned order, dated 15.11.2017 directing the 5th respondent to cancel the “pattadar passbook” issued in favour of petitioner’s vendor holding that the 7th respondent is entitled to the property in Sy.No.21/2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) is only applicable to the agricultural land and will not apply to the non-agriculture land. He points out that the definition of land under Section 2(4) of the Act 1971 means land which is used or is capable of being used for purposes of agriculture, but it is not including land which is used for non-agricultural purposes. It is his contention that as the land was converted into non-agricultural land in 2010 and the layout was approved, passing of the impugned order dated 15.11.2017 is not at all correct. He points out that the impugned order dt.15.11.2017 was passed against the revision order dated 14.03.2011, filed by the 7th respondent. Even by that date he points out that the land is not agricultural land. He points out that the impugned order dt.15.11.2017 was passed against the revision order dated 14.03.2011, filed by the 7th respondent. Even by that date he points out that the land is not agricultural land. Relying on the unofficial respondent’s title learned counsel points out that she claims to acquire the title through the document dated 07.12.2006 (Document No.6597 of 2006) and her vendor had acquired title through document No.393 of 1972. This sale deed dated 07.12.2006 purportedly conveys the land in Sy.No.21/2 and 21/3. Relying on an extract of the sale deed No.393/1972 learned counsel points out that it relates to the land in Sy.No.15/5 and not to Sy.No.21/2 or 21/3. Therefore, he submits the unofficial respondents have no valid title at all to the property. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Standing counsel for the TUDA, argue essentially justifying the orders that were passed and do not really raise other issues. Lengthy arguments were, however, advanced on behalf of Smt. S. Pranathi, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent. One prime argument that is advanced is that the 7th respondent had died long prior to filing of the Writ Petition itself and that the Writ filed against the 7th respondent is void. It is argued that the writ petitioner is fully aware of the death of the 7th respondent and yet he filed this Writ. It is also pointed out by relying upon para-4 of the counter affidavit of the 8th respondent and tabular statement contained therein that the petitioner has suppressed a number of facts while filing the writ and that a person who comes to the Writ Court must make a free and frank disclosure of all the facts. It is contended that as there is clear suppression of facts, the Writ should be dismissed in limine. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in K. Jayaram and Others v. Bangalore Development Authority and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1194. He points out by relying on a death certificate of the 7th respondent that she had died on 24.05.2017 itself, long prior to the institution of the Writ. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in K. Jayaram and Others v. Bangalore Development Authority and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1194. He points out by relying on a death certificate of the 7th respondent that she had died on 24.05.2017 itself, long prior to the institution of the Writ. Relying upon Shri Pratap Chand Mehta v. Smt. Krishna Devi Mehta, ILR (1987) II 210, C. Muttu v. Bharath Match Works, Sivakasi, 1963 SCC OnLine Kar 88 : AIR 1964 Mys 293 and Chellaram Jethanand Madhrani and another v. Maruti Raghunath Kadam and others, 2004 SCC OnLine Bom 932 : (2006) 1 Bom CR 816, learned counsel submits that the writ against a dead person is void ab initio and cannot be brought back into the life even by substitution of the Legal Representatives. He submits that on both these grounds the Writ should be dismissed. He also points out that even as on July, 2022 the land is not shown as plots and as per the revenue records it is classified as agriculture land only and is in the name of legal representative i.e., 8th respondent. Therefore, on all these grounds, learned counsel for the respondents argues that this is a fit case for dismissal of the land. 5. In reply to this Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy states that the petitioner is not a party to the suit to be aware of the death of the 7th respondent. Only after the notices issued in this Writ Petition were returned with an endorsement that the 7th respondent died they realized that she had infact expired. Thereafter the LRs were brought on record. He submits that the documents filed by the 8th respondent do not reveal that the petitioner is actually aware of the death of the 7th respondent prior to filing of the writ. Therefore, he submits that the 8th respondent submissions should be ignored. COURT : 6. The following facts are visible from the record : (a) The petitioner’s claim is that he has acquired title through a sale deed dated 22.03.2010 from D. Subadramma. His vendor claims title to the property through a document dated 16.05.2007 (Doct.No.3380/2007). The property conveyed to the petitioner is the land measuring Ac.0-19 cents or 919.6 Sq.yards in Sy.No.21/3. The following facts are visible from the record : (a) The petitioner’s claim is that he has acquired title through a sale deed dated 22.03.2010 from D. Subadramma. His vendor claims title to the property through a document dated 16.05.2007 (Doct.No.3380/2007). The property conveyed to the petitioner is the land measuring Ac.0-19 cents or 919.6 Sq.yards in Sy.No.21/3. The Rule 3 statement, which is a part of the sale deed, shows that for the sale consideration, market value is calculated at the rate of Rs.825/- per Sq.yard, for 919.6 Sq.yards equaling to Rs.7,59,000/-. (b) The link document also relates to Sy.No.21/2 and Sy.No.21/2. (c) The RDO, Tirupati-4th respondent has converted the land in Sy.No.21/2 and 21/3 into non-agriculture land after receipt of the fees by his proceedings dated 23.01.2010. (d) Layout was also approved, including the land in Sy.No.21 by the 6th respondent by proceedings dated 08.02.2010. The mortgage executed for fulfilling the conditions has also been redeemed on 19.03.2010. (e) It is also interesting to note that the same Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, Sri A. Prasad, who has allowed conversion of land into the non-agriculture land (by his orders dated 23.01.2010) has also entertained an appeal filed by the 7th respondent on and passed orders dated 14.03.2011. By 14.03.2011 the land was converted into non-agriculture land and the layout was also approved. The mortgage given was also released by the 6th respondent on 19.03.2010. (f) Respondent No.8 claims that the 7th respondent died on 24.05.2017. The impugned order is passed on 15.11.2017 and the deceased “Sundaramma” is the revision petitioner before the Joint Collector. Her death was not brought to his notice. (g) Although the conversion of the land appears to have been done and the layout is also approved in 2010 itself, the petitioner’s sale deed mentions the extent both in cents and sq.yards. The market value calculation is in, however, sq.yards. (h) As far as the 8th respondent title is concerned the counsel for the petitioner points out that she claims title through document dated 07.12.2006 (Doct.No.6597/2006) from her vendor. The property conveyed is in Sy.No.21/2 and 21/3. However, the link document No.393/1972 pertains to the land in Sy.No.15/2 only. So whether lawful title was conveyed is debatable. 7. (h) As far as the 8th respondent title is concerned the counsel for the petitioner points out that she claims title through document dated 07.12.2006 (Doct.No.6597/2006) from her vendor. The property conveyed is in Sy.No.21/2 and 21/3. However, the link document No.393/1972 pertains to the land in Sy.No.15/2 only. So whether lawful title was conveyed is debatable. 7. A recital of all of the above would show clearly that there are serious questions of fact and this Court cannot decide the larger issues that were raised and argued at length by all the counsels, all of which require pleading and evidence. 8. For the purpose of disposal of this Writ the above mentioned facts are being highlighted since it is apparent that by the date of the original order dated 14.03.2011 or by the date of impugned order viz., 15.11.2017, the land apparently ceased to be agriculture land and became part of the layout in a non-agriculture land. Both the parties have not, in a strict sense of the word, done what is necessary for affective adjudication. Nevertheless, since the rights of the parties are valuable and claims are in land, in view of the sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner and other documents with regard to conversion of the land, this Court has to hold that the impugned order dated 15.11.2017 and the earlier order dated 14.03.2011 are liable to be set aside. 9. Apart from this, it is also submitted that the petitioners are guilty of suppression of facts. This Court holds after perusal of the record notices that it is not clearly visible that the present writ petitioner is actually aware of the death of the 7th respondent. Either in suit O.S.No.252 of 2007 or in the A.S.No.60 of 2014, the present writ petitioner is not a party. In the suit O.S.No.865 of 2019 the cause of action is different. Claiming right and title to the property the writ petitioner has filed a suit against Mr. S. Natarajan, the newly added Legal Representative. In the plaint also he has stated that the property was converted into house sites and TUDA also approved the layout. In the suit O.S.No.865 of 2019 the cause of action is different. Claiming right and title to the property the writ petitioner has filed a suit against Mr. S. Natarajan, the newly added Legal Representative. In the plaint also he has stated that the property was converted into house sites and TUDA also approved the layout. While the case law cited by the learned counsel for the respondents is not in doubt, this Court does not find any proof to clearly hold that the writ petitioner had knowledge of the death and yet has filed the writ petition against a dead person. It is also noteworthy that the writ is not filed solely against the deceased; it questions the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned order. The fact of her death is also not noted in the impugned order. Therefore, this Court has to conclude that no personal knowledge can be attributed about the death of the 7th respondent prior to the Writ, and the argument of a Writ against a dead person / suppression of facts has to be rejected. 10. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. 11. However, it is made very clear that the findings that are given are only for the purpose of disposal of this Writ and would not constitute an independent recognition of a right, title or interest of any of the parties. If they so desire they will have to approach the appropriate civil court and work out their remedies. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.