Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 230 (AP)

K. Obul Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-02-24

A.V.SESHA SAI, RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2022
ORDER : A.V.Sesha Sai, J. Since these cases are interrelated, though these matters appear under the caption ‘admission’, with the consent of all the learned Advocates, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these cases by way of this common order. 2. In Writ Petition No.23144 of 2020, the petitioners are assailing the alleged inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District in giving effect to the order, dated 05.08.2015, passed by the Special Tribunal under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-cum-the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa in L.G.O.P.No.184 of 2013, dated 05.08.2015. 3. In C.R.P.No.798 of 2020 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order, dated 12.12.2019 in I.A.No.2842 of 2018 in L.G.O.P.No.184 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa-cum- Special Tribunal under the Provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. 4. Shorn of inappropriate details, the factual aspects which are necessary for adjudication of the issues in the present cases are as follows :- The petitioners in Writ Petition No.23144 of 2020 filed L.G.O.P.No.184 of 2013 against the petitioners in C.R.P.No.798 of 2020 and certain others on the file of the Special Tribunal under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-cum-Principal District Judge’s Court, Kadapa under Section 7-A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 for a direction to the respondents in the said L.G.O.P. to remove the constructions made by them and to deliver vacant possession of the land. The learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa, by way of an order, dated 05.08.2015, allowed the said L.G.O.P.No.184 of 2013 while declaring the petitioners therein as owners of the schedule property/plots and while declaring the respondents in L.G.O.P.No.184 of 2013 as land grabbers, directed the respondents to vacate the schedule property within a period of three months from the date of pronouncement of the order. In the said order, the learned Principal District Judge also directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu to give effect to the result of the Special Tribunal by evicting the respondents by following the procedure laid down under Rule 15 of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988. In the said order, the learned Principal District Judge also directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu to give effect to the result of the Special Tribunal by evicting the respondents by following the procedure laid down under Rule 15 of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988. Subsequently on a representation made by the petitioners in the present writ petition, the District Collector, YSR Kadapa vide letter bearing Ref.No.REV-ESECOLGA/1/2016-SA(E5)-KDPCO, dated 11.09.2016, requested Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu to take necessary action for removal of the encroachments as per Rules in force and submit compliance report. Thereafter, the writ petitioners herein submitted a representation on 18.08.2020 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, while referring to the order, dated 12.12.2019, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa in I.A.No.2842 of 2018 in L.G.O.P.No.184 of 2013. In the above background, alleging inaction on the part of the revenue authorities in giving effect to the order passed in the L.G.O.P.No.184 of 2013, Writ Petition No.23144 of 2020 came to be filed before this Court on 30.11.2020. 5. In the writ petition, a counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu. 6. As mentioned supra, L.G.O.P.No.184 of 2013 came to be allowed by the Tribunal on 05.08.2015. The petitioners in C.R.P.No.798 of 2020, who were arrayed as respondents in the aforementioned L.G.O.P., filed I.A.No.2842 of 2018 on 26.12.2018, seeking condonation of delay of 1125 days in filing the petition for setting aside the decree, dated 05.08.2015, passed in L.G.O.P.No.184 of 2013. The said I.A. was contested by the petitioners in L.G.O.P.No.184 of 2013/petitioners in the present Writ Petition. The learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa-cum-Special Tribunal under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 by way an order, dated 12.12.2019, dismissed I.A.No.2842 of 2018. C.R.P.No.798 of 2020 calls in question the validity and legal sustainability of the said order passed in I.A.No.2842 of 2018. 7. Heard Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents, in W.P.No.21344 of 2020; and Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents in C.R.P.No.798 of 2020. 8. 7. Heard Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents, in W.P.No.21344 of 2020; and Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents in C.R.P.No.798 of 2020. 8. It is contended by Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy that the inaction impugned in the writ petition is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. It is further contended by the learned counsel that since the order passed by the Tribunal on 05.08.2015, ordering eviction of the respondents therein attained finality there is absolutely no justification on the part of the revenue authorities in not giving the effect of the said order. It is also his further submission that the action of the respondents is contrary to Rule 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988. It is further contended by him that the order passed in I.A.No.2842 of 2018 which is impugned in C.R.P.No.798 of 2020 does not warrant any interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the absence of any perversity. It is also his further submission that after extensively considering all the aspects, the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa dismissed the I.A.No.2842 of 2018. 9. On the contrary, Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioners in C.R.P.No.798 of 2020, submits that the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa in I.A.No.2842 of 2018 is highly erroneous and contrary to law and having regard to the reasons assigned by the petitioners in I.A.No.2842 of 2018, the learned Principal District Judge, ought to have allowed the said application and ought to have afforded opportunity to the petitioners to contest the case on merits. It is also his further submission that the petitioners in C.R.P.No.798 of 2020 have been in possession and enjoyment of the property for so many decades and they are poor people and all of them are the hawkers and carrying on petty businesses. 10. It is also his further submission that the petitioners in C.R.P.No.798 of 2020 have been in possession and enjoyment of the property for so many decades and they are poor people and all of them are the hawkers and carrying on petty businesses. 10. Sri G.L. Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, submits that the allegation that the revenue authorities did not take any action pursuant to the order passed in L.G.O.P.No.184 of 2013 is fallacious and incorrect and the Tahsildar, Proddutur on 30.04.2018 issued notice to the occupants of the subject land to vacate the land. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the survey was also conducted and found no Government land in the subject survey numbers. It is further stated by him that after holding enquiry the Revenue Divisional Officer instructed the subordinate authorities to relocate the existing residents in order to implement the orders of the learned Principal District Judge. 11. Rule 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 reads as follows:- [(1) The Court/Tribunal shall communicate its final decision or order in respect of the Government land to the affected parties and also to the Revenue Divisional Officer to give effect to its decisions. In respect of other lands the final decision/ order shall be communicated to the affected parties who shall take action to give effect to the decision in accordance with the provisions of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908.] (2) The Revenue Divisional Officer shall on receipt of the order of the Court issue or arrange to issue a direction in Form V deputing any Officer not lower in rank than a Revenue Inspector to take possession of the grabbed land on behalf of the Court and deliver possession of the land to the person ordered by the Court. (3) A copy of the authorisation issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer shall be served or arranged to be served on the person in possession or occupation of the land, as the case may be. (4) Where the person in possession or occupation of the grabbed land delivers possession thereof voluntarily, the officer so deputed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under sub-rule (2) shall record a statement of the person to that effect and also record a certificate in Form VI and send the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned and the Court. (4) Where the person in possession or occupation of the grabbed land delivers possession thereof voluntarily, the officer so deputed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under sub-rule (2) shall record a statement of the person to that effect and also record a certificate in Form VI and send the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned and the Court. (5) Where the person in possession or occupation of the grabbed land fails to deliver possession of that land voluntarily the officer, so deputed under sub-rule (2) may enter on the land and take possession thereof on behalf of the Revenue Divisional Officer after removing any obstruction or unauthorised occupant, if any, on such land, by taking such Police assistance as may be necessary and record a certificate in Form VII duly attested by two witnesses. (6) The certificate in Form VII shall be prepared in triplicate and one copy each shall be sent to the Special Court/Revenue Divisional Officer/Mandal Revenue Officer. (7) Where the Revenue Divisional Officer directs the Officer so deputed to deliver possession to the person ordered by the Court, the Officer shall accordingly deliver possession and record a certificate to that effect. (8) Where the Revenue Divisional Officer has been directed that the land taken possession of shall be kept under his control and management, the officer so deputed under sub-rule (2) shall, take possession of the land and report the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer and seek his directions. (9) An order granting compensation and also profits and cost of redelivery passed in favour of a owner other than the Government, may be executed by the Court through the Tribunal in accordance with the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (10) The Tribunal shall execute its order granting compensation and also profits and costs of redelivery passed in favour of a owner other than the Government in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 12. The material available on record reveals, in clear and candid terms, that the order passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1988 in L.G.O.P.No.184 of 2013 on 05.08.2015 attained finality as the writ petition filed by the revision petitioners in L.G.O.P.No.2386 of 2010 vide Writ Petition No.2386 of 2019 was dismissed by this Court on 22.07.2021 as infructuous. With a delay of 1125 days in filing a petition to set aside the decree, dated 05.08.2015, the petitioners in C.R.P.No.798 of 2020 filed I.A.No.2842 of 2018 along with others. The said I.A.No.2842 of 2018 was contested by the petitioners in W.P.No.23144 of 2020. The learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa by way of the order impugned in the C.R.P.No.798 of 2020, dismissed the same. The learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa on the basis of the material available, framed the following point for consideration: “Whether the petitioners have made out valid and sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 1125 days in the affidavit filed in support of the said application”. 13. The petitioners in the C.R.P. pleaded that they were kept in darkness and the delay was neither wilful nor intentional and on merits also they pleaded that the subject property belongs to the Government. The learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa, after going through the entire material recorded a finding that the petitioners engaged their Advocates and the Court had given ample opportunity to them to file their claim statements but they did not avail the said opportunity and dragged on the matter for about two years and finally, the Court passed an order of eviction. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A.No.2842 of 2018, the petitioners in the present C.R.P. did not specifically plead that they did not receive the notice in the L.G.O.P. 14. Learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa after meticulously and exclusively considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration, the law laid down in the cases of Raja Manemma vs. B.Fakruddin, 2014(6) ALT 802 and State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary to Government Roads and Building and others vs. A.Murali Mahava Rao and others, 2009(3) ALT 637 (DB), came to a categorical conclusion that the petitioners in the said application could not show sufficient and valid grounds to condone the delay of 1125 days in filing the application to set aside the decree. It is a settled and well established principle of law that the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is permissible only when the order impugned suffers from the jurisdictional error or patent perversity. It is a settled and well established principle of law that the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is permissible only when the order impugned suffers from the jurisdictional error or patent perversity. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners herein in C.R.P.No.798 of 2020 have failed in establishing the existence of such contingencies in the order impugned in the revision. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to meddle with the said well articulated order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa in I.A.No.2842 of 2018. Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 also enables to the revenue authorities to take the assistance of the police if the persons in the possession refuse to handover the possession of the property. For the aforesaid reasons, C.R.P.No.798 of 2020 is dismissed. 15. However, having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the revision, six (6) months time is granted to the petitioners to vacate the subject lands. 16. The Writ Petition No.23144 of 2020 is disposed of, directing the respondents in the writ petition to implement the order, dated 05.08.2015 in L.G.O.P.No. 184 of 2013, passed by the Special Tribunal under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder immediately after expiry of above mentioned six months time. It is also made clear that if the petitioners in C.R.P.No.798 of 2020 fail to adhere the aforesaid directions, the respondent revenue authorities shall take appropriate steps in accordance with the provisions of the law, referred supra and complete the entire exercise as expeditiously as possible, after the expiry of the aforementioned six (6) months time. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in these petitions shall stand closed.