Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 138 (AP)

Kurra Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-02-01

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2022
JUDGMENT D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. - This Court has heard Sri Ramana allu, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The prayer in WP.No.13252 of 2020 is as follows: 'to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularity one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing the 2 to 4 Respondents not to excavate gravel from the petitioners agricultural land in Survey Nos.7/2, 7/3, 7/4 and 7/4-part for the total admeasuring ac.13.50 cents in Kesavaram Village, Mandapeta Mandal, East Godavari District pending consideration of the written explanation dt. 19.06.2020 acknowledged on 20.06.2020 and Representations Dt. 16.07.2020 before the 3rd Respondent for their Notice dt 04.06.2020 in pursuance of the Orders in WP Nos.8274, 8290 and 8291 of 2020 dt 28.05.2020 in the interest of justice by declaring the Respondents arbitrary action is being illegal, high handed and violation of articles 14, 211, 300-a of the Constitution of India..' 2. In the other three writ petitions referred to namely WP.Nos.23731, 23743 and 23744 of 2021, the prayer is to conduct an enquiry by considering the written explanation submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice pursuant to the order dated 28.05.2020 in WP.Nos.8274, 8290 and 8291 of 2020. 3. The genesis of this dispute and the writ petitions arises out of an alleged attempt to dig gravel from what the petitioners claim as their land. a learned single Judge of this Court vide orders dated 28.05.2020 directed the respondent-State to conduct an enquiry into the landless poor status etc., of the petitioners and restrained the State from digging the gravel till then. The contention of the petitioners is that the same was not done. Hence, the three writ petitions referred to above followed by WP.No.13252 of 2020. 4. Sri Ramana allu argued at length. He points out that in the order dated 28.05.2020 a direction was given directing respondent No.3 to conduct an enquiry with regard to the petitioners being landless poor and to take appropriate action after such enquiry. The Court also directed that till the said enquiry is completed, no excavation can go on in the disputed land. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the order, a show cause notice was issued to which a reply was given. as per the averments in the three writ petitions referred to above, the enquiry was not completed. The Court also directed that till the said enquiry is completed, no excavation can go on in the disputed land. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the order, a show cause notice was issued to which a reply was given. as per the averments in the three writ petitions referred to above, the enquiry was not completed. The contention of the petitioners is that despite the clear and categorical order passed by this Court, the respondents have not completed the enquiry into the status of the petitioners as the landless poor and their eligibility to remain in possession of the land and to claim certain rights thereon. He submits that the respondent-State has no respect for the law and that the order dated 28.05.2020 was passed based upon the written instructions and in the presence of Government Pleader only. Therefore, he submits that until the enquiry is completed, the excavation of gravel in the site of the petitioners should not be allowed to go on. He therefore prays for a positive order in WP.No.13252 of 2020 and also in the other three writ petitions. 5. In reply to this, learned Government Pleader argues at length on the basis of his counter filed on behalf of respondent No.3. Learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioners have purchased the land from the original assignees. Thereafter, notices in Form-1, 2 and 3 were issued to the assignees and the purchasers. after considering this fact, the final order was passed on 09.06.2020 vide reference No.B/559/2010 rejecting the claim of the petitioners and possession of the lands were also taken over physically on 10.06.2010 in the presence of the witnesses. Learned Government Pleader submits that this fact is suppressed in the writ petition. He relies upon the additional documents which he has filed along with a memo which include the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Mandapet dated 09.06.2010 (B559/2010) which is referred to in the counter. The certificate of taking over of land has signatures of the petitioners also and this is relied on the Government Pleader. He submits that all the three petitioners were present when the land was taken over on 10.06.2010 and have suppressed these facts in the series of writ petitions filed. The certificate of taking over of land has signatures of the petitioners also and this is relied on the Government Pleader. He submits that all the three petitioners were present when the land was taken over on 10.06.2010 and have suppressed these facts in the series of writ petitions filed. He also argues that along with the counter of respondent No.3, proceedings dated 11.07.2020 was also given, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the writ petitioners are not landless poor and an endorsement was also issued to the petitioners on 11.06.2010 itself. He relies upon copy of the endorsements which are filed. Counsel points out that there is a specific reference to the proceedings dated 09.06.2010 and the taking over on 10.06.2010 in these proceedings. He points out that to contradict the same, the petitioners have not filed a rejoinder nor have they in any way denied the fact. Learned counsel submits that since the land is admittedly taken over in 2010, conducting of a fresh enquiry once again would be an empty formality. In the alternative, he also argues that the proceedings dated 11.07.2020 issued to the three petitioners also reiterate this fact and therefore, he submits that the order of the learned single Judge is complied with. He also submits that learned Government Pleader (his predecessor) did not have complete instructions and in particular about the taking over of the land in 2010 to guide the Court properly and that as the writ was allowed at the stage of admission, all the facts were not brought to the notice of the Court. He also argues that the land was allotted to the third parties for excavation of gravel by the Mines Department and thereafter the State Government wishes to issue these house site pattas to landless poor. Learned Government Pleader submits that this is a prestigious project of the State which is being stalled by the petitioners. He submits that the conduct of the petitioners dis-entitle them from any relief. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 4 while stating that they have given permission as per the proceedings stipulated under the act, submits that before the proceedings were granted, periodic inspections were carried out and the land was found to be filled with jungles, hill area with rocks and red gravel soil. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 4 while stating that they have given permission as per the proceedings stipulated under the act, submits that before the proceedings were granted, periodic inspections were carried out and the land was found to be filled with jungles, hill area with rocks and red gravel soil. a part of the land is also abyss and chasm. Major part of the land is a hill area with deep slope with thorn bushes and forest trees. He refers to the letters of the Tahsildar, Mandapet and other documents to make his submissions that the land was never in the possession of the petitioners and that the reports of the Tahsildar, the Department of Mines etc., show that the same were uncultivated forest land filled with bushes etc. He therefore submits that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Lastly, he also submits that no rejoinder is filed to the specific averments made in the counter affidavit. Government Pleader argued that a prestigious project of the Government is being held up and therefore, the writ itself is taken up for hearing. 7. This is a peculiar case where the petitioners are relying upon the orders dated 28.05.2020 in WP.Nos.8274, 8290 and 8291 of 2020. The learned counsel states that the respondents are bound by this order while this is denied by the learned Government Pleader in view of the suppression of facts by the petitioners. 8. This Court finds sufficient strength in the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the orders dated 28.05.2020 were not passed after considering all the facts and that the completion of enquiry is really not warranted since the petitioners are guilty of serious suppression of facts. This Court finds that in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, a very specific reference was made to the taking over of the land. The proceedings dated 09.06.2010 and possession certificate dated 10.06.2010 are highlighted in the counter affidavit. The first writ petition is filed almost 10 years after the land was taken possession. In none of the writ petitions filed, the petitioners asserted that possession was 'not' taken over by the State. The proceedings dated 09.06.2010 and possession certificate dated 10.06.2010 are highlighted in the counter affidavit. The first writ petition is filed almost 10 years after the land was taken possession. In none of the writ petitions filed, the petitioners asserted that possession was 'not' taken over by the State. Even to the counter affidavit filed and the additional documents disclosed, no sworn affidavit of reply of the contesting parties was filed denying the contents of the affidavits or the contents of the documents. The State has come on record and asserted that in 2010 itself, possession of the land was taken. The signatures, thumb marks of the three petitioners are highlighted by the Government Pleader and these are not denied. More than once, the highest Courts of the land have held that there should be a free and fair disclosure of all facts in a writ petition before the petitioners claim any relief. This Court finds that there is clear suppression of facts and property which was taken over in 2010 is still projected as being in possession of the petitioners. 9. The counter affidavit filed by the Mines Department and its enclosures show that the land is hardly cultivable or cultivated. It is filled with thorn bushes, hill slopes, chasms etc. Other authorities have also inspected the site. Clearances were given to an applicant for mining and the same was processed by various authorities. all of these are mentioned in detail in the documents. The contemporaneous documents including the note files show that the land in Sy.Nos.7/2, 7/3 and 7/4 of Kesavaram village has been under the possession of the Government. 485 beneficiaries were also identified for issuance of house site pattas. It is clearly written that the land is not suitable for agricultural activities. The State also stopped its mining activities pursuant to the interim order dated 11.08.2020 in this case. In this order dated 11.08.2020 also in this writ petition, it is clearly mentioned that the authorities had resumed the land back in the year 2010 itself. Nothing to the contrary is relied on by the petitioners. 10. The State also stopped its mining activities pursuant to the interim order dated 11.08.2020 in this case. In this order dated 11.08.2020 also in this writ petition, it is clearly mentioned that the authorities had resumed the land back in the year 2010 itself. Nothing to the contrary is relied on by the petitioners. 10. The contemporaneous documents, the evidence filed the before this Court, the failure to deny the important aspects which are highlighted and also the presence of the signatures and thumb marks of the petitioners on the taking over possession, clearly show that the petitioners were aware of this resumption of the land in 2010. 11. The proceedings dated 09.06.2020 also clearly show that notices were issued to the original assignees and also to the present petitioners in Form-2. The land records were verified, field enquiry was done and the present set of petitioners had submitted an explanation stating that they had purchased the land and developed the same into an orchard etc. The request of present set of petitioners is rejected in this order and the possession was directed to be taken over without delay. The order is communicated to the legal heirs of the original assignees and also to the present set of petitioners. The signatures of two of the petitioners and the thumb impression of the third party are on this record. The certificate of taking over of the lands clearly mentions the survey numbers, extents, the presence of witnesses and also has the signatures, thumb impression of the petitioners. 12. Therefore, it is clear that the land was taken over in June 2010 itself and the petitioners are fully aware of the same. They have suppressed the fact in all the writ petitions that they have filed and have attempted to get further reliefs. 13. This Court is conscious of the fact that a learned single Judge directed the State to conduct an enquiry and passed an order stopping the excavation of the gravel till then. 14. This Court is of the opinion that on a perusal of the documents even if the petitioners prove themselves to be landless poor, they cannot as a matter of right stall the entire development activity. admittedly, as per the survey conducted, the proceedings of the Mines Department etc., the land is not being cultivated at the present. 14. This Court is of the opinion that on a perusal of the documents even if the petitioners prove themselves to be landless poor, they cannot as a matter of right stall the entire development activity. admittedly, as per the survey conducted, the proceedings of the Mines Department etc., the land is not being cultivated at the present. The presence of an orchard is not noticed in any of the documents. The land itself is said to be a sloping land with an abyss and chasm. It is overgrown with bushes etc and there is no semblance of any systematic activity like cultivation/orchard etc. The presence of gravel is noticed. Proceedings have also been issued to a third party for excavating the gravel. 15. This Court is of the opinion that even the orders passed by the learned single Judge in WP.Nos.8274, 8290 and 8291 of 2020 are not complied with in letter and spirit, still the fact remains that the land was taken over in the year 2010 itself. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that writ petition can only be partially allowed. The excavation of the gravel and the allotment of sites can be proceed with as it is also for public good This Court finds no reason to stop the same. Larger public good will always outweigh individual, personal claims. admittedly, the Government is in possession since 2010 itself. The documents filed show that the petitioners were aware of the proceedings and were present when the land was taken over. 16. Therefore, W.P.No.13252 of 2020 is partially allowed and the respondents are directed to conduct an enquiry into the 'landless poor status of the petitioners'. If they are found to be actually landless poor, they may be given the benefits as per law elsewhere at an appropriate places, but definitely not to in Sy.Nos.7/2, 7/3, and 7/4 and 7/4 (part) measuring ac.13.50 cents in Kesavaram Village. The petitioners conduct totally disentitles them from seeking the relief from this Court in respect of the above mentioned extent of ac 13.50 cents land. The respondents are at liberty to dig/excavate the gravel and also to allot the sites to the poor under their schemes in the said extent. 17. The petitioners conduct totally disentitles them from seeking the relief from this Court in respect of the above mentioned extent of ac 13.50 cents land. The respondents are at liberty to dig/excavate the gravel and also to allot the sites to the poor under their schemes in the said extent. 17. Since the show cause notice and the explanations are already filed, the Tahsildar is directed to complete the enquiry into the 'landless poor status' of the petitioners alone within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order passed must be a speaking order. It is reiterated that if they are found to be landless poor they can be given the eligible benefits elsewhere only. 18. With the above direction, W.P.No.13252 of 2020 is partially allowed. No further orders are necessary in all the other three writ petitions (WP.Nos.23731, 23743 and 23744 of 2021) and accordingly they are dismissed. No order as to costs. 19. as a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.