Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 44 (AP)

K. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-01-07

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2022
ORDER : As C.C.No.535 of 2020 arises out of the proceedings in W.P.No.8907 of 2020, both these cases are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. A quick review, of the facts in the present case, is required before adjudicating on the issues raised in these cases. 3. One Sri Korada Venkataswamy Naidu was declared as surplus land holder for an extent of Ac.45.59 cents by proceedings bearing LCC No.230/75 dated 29.08.1978 issued by the Land Reforms Tribunal and Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, under Section 8 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short “the Act”). These proceedings were in relation to the lands owned by the declarant in Peddipalem, Anandapuram and Vellanki villages in Anandapuram Mandal and Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal. The declarant gave a surrender statement under which he agreed to handover Ac.28.84 cents of land in Madhurawada village and the possession of the said lands is said to have been taken over by the Land Reforms authorities on 27.07.1984 under Section 10(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the declarant filed an appeal in L.R.A.No.1 of 1989 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeal and directed that alternative lands in lieu of the lands surrendered in Madhurawada village should be accepted from the declarant. The matter went into appeal and finally, the Land Reforms Tribunal agreed for taking over Ac.17.70 cents of land in different villages in lieu of the lands in Madhurawada village. These lands were taken over. However, after calculating the extent of land taken over, the Land Reforms authorities held that another Ac.11.14 cents of land had to be surrendered. 4. By that stage, Sri Korada Venkataswamy Naidu passed away and his two sons Sri Sadhu Jagannadharao and Sri K.V.S. Suryarao gave their consent to surrender Ac.11.14 cents of land in Sy.No.39/5-part of Vemulavalasa village. Initially, this land was sought to be taken over. However, these two persons changed their view and again filed a petition, stating that only Ac.6.63 cents needs to be handed over. There was further litigation, wherein these two persons approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Initially, this land was sought to be taken over. However, these two persons changed their view and again filed a petition, stating that only Ac.6.63 cents needs to be handed over. There was further litigation, wherein these two persons approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Without going into the details of the entire litigation, it can be stated that after these two persons passed away, their wives, who are the petitioners in this writ petition, had informed the Land Reforms Tribunal that they had acquired Ac.5.57 cents each in Sy.No.40 Part of Badanapadu village, Ravikamatham mandal through registered deeds of sale dated 01.06.2016 and requested the Land Reforms Tribunal to accept these two bits of land in lieu of the land proposed for surrender, by their husbands, in Sy.No.39/5-Part of Vemulavalasa village. At that stage, the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Visakhapatnam, requested the Lands Reform Tribunal to take into account the fact that the acquisition of the additional Ac.11.14 cents of land in Badanapadu village and the acquisition of another Ac.11.14 cents of land in Cheemalapalli village should be taken into account while considering the total lands mentioned in the original declaration filed by the original declarant. 6. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Visakhapatnam accepted the offer of the petitioners to take over Ac.5.57 cents each in Sy.No.40 of Badanapadu village by proceedings dated 05.10.2017. These proceedings were challenged by the authorised officer before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeal vide orders dated 07.09.2018 in L.R.A.No.1 of 2018 to the effect that further acquisitions of land in Cheemalapalli Village and Badanapadu village, should be taken into account to arrive at the total lands mentioned in the original declaration filed by the original declarant. 7. Aggrieved by the said orders in L.R.A.No.1 of 2018, the petitioners approached this Court by way of C.R.P.No.5417 of 2018, which is pending. This Court by interim order dated 20.09.2018 had suspended the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in L.R.A.No.1 of 2018 till further orders and the said order of suspension is subsisting. 8. 7. Aggrieved by the said orders in L.R.A.No.1 of 2018, the petitioners approached this Court by way of C.R.P.No.5417 of 2018, which is pending. This Court by interim order dated 20.09.2018 had suspended the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in L.R.A.No.1 of 2018 till further orders and the said order of suspension is subsisting. 8. After the said orders were passed, the petitioners filed applications in mee-seva for issue of e-pattadar passbooks for the land admeasuring Ac.5.57 cents each in Sy.No.39/5-A and Sy.No.39/5B of Vemulavalasa village, which was rejected by the Tahsildar, Anandapuram on 01.11.2018 on the ground that the matter was pending before this Court in C.R.P.No.5417 of 2018. 9. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection dated 01.11.2018, the petitioners herein filed W.P.No.1669 of 2019 and sought to set aside the same. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 29.03.2019 with the following direction : “In the result, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned endorsement and remitting the matters to the Tahsildar, Anandapuram, to reconsider the applications of the petitioners for the purposes mentioned therein and for passing orders afresh, subject however to the result of CRP pending before this Court. The exercise in the above regard shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and the decisions taken on the applications of the petitioners shall be communicated to them within a week thereafter.” 10. Pursuant to these directions, the Tahsildar Anandapuram issued proceedings dated 17.04.2020 granting e-pattadar passbooks for such lands. However, these directions also set out four conditions, which are not there in any proceedings granting e-pattadar passbooks. These directions, which are extracted here, are said to have been issued in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case of the petitioners mentioned above. The directions are – (i) That the applicants shall submit a notarized sworn affidavits on non-judicial stamp for suitable value mentioned that these lands Ac.5.57 cents in S.No.39/5A and Ac.5.57 cents Sy.No.39/5B of Vemulavalasa village, Anandapuram Mandal shall not dispose of/sale/mortgage /gift/lease/settlement deed/agreements/GPAs etc., until the final orders in CRP No.5417 of 2018 are issued by the Hon’ble High Court and that they acted in violation to the contents mentioned by them in this notarized affidavit, it is the liberty of the revenue authorities to initiate suitable legal action against them. (ii) Any other facts or relevant information if any concealed by the petitioners of such importance and felt to be taken into consideration in processing the Mutations/Pattadar Pass Books to the petitioners, and if at a later date, if the same came to the knowledge of the authorities and found concealed by the petitioners, the pattadar pass books now issued by virtue of this order are liable for cancellation. (iii) The applicants have to file fresh applications through mee-seva which is mandatory, without mee-seva applications it is not possible to mutate the names of the applicants in web-land data. (iv) The mutation thus allowed will be locked in web-land website to prevent further transactions and it will be kept in the Dispute register under the caption “Pending disposal of CRP/subject to outcome of CRP.” 11. Aggrieved by the said directions, the petitioners approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. This Court by an order dated 19.05.2020 had suspended the above four conditions stipulating that the mutation would be subject to the result of C.R.P.No.5417 of 2018. 12. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court by way of the present contempt case on the ground that the respondents, despite notice of the order dated 19.05.2020, have chosen to ignore the said order and no steps are being taken for effecting entries in the revenue records and for issuance of pattadar passbooks. The petitioners also stated, in the contempt case, that the petitioners had issued a legal notice to the 1st respondent seeking implementation of the order of this Court, but no steps were taken by the 1st respondent to see that the order of this Court dated 19.05.2020 was enforced and adhered to. 13. The respondents have filed counter affidavits in both the writ petition as well as the contempt case. The contention of the respondents in the writ petition is that the petitioners have already entered into an agreement of sale with one M/s. Potluri Agro Farms & Projects India Pvt. Ltd., and executed an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney for the said lands and that the said lands would be alienated to third parties unless the impugned conditions were contained in the said order. An elaborate table has also been set out in the counter affidavit of the respondents setting out the conditions mentioned above and justification for each of the conditions. 14. An elaborate table has also been set out in the counter affidavit of the respondents setting out the conditions mentioned above and justification for each of the conditions. 14. The justification given for the first condition of requiring a notarised sworn affidavit is said to be that the acceptance of alternative lands in Badanapadu village is subject to the decision in C.R.P.No.5417 of 2018 and as such creation of third party interest would result in avoidable third party litigation. The second condition is said to have been imposed as a precautionary measure to protect the interest of the State in view of the multiple litigation going on for the past 40 years. The third requirement of a fresh application being filed through mee-seva is that mutation in the web-land records would not be possible unless applications are made through mee-seva only. Further, as the earlier mee-seva applications have been closed further mutation is permissible only by way of a fresh application through mee-seva; and the fourth condition is said to have been imposed to prevent third party litigation and to avoid further disputes as third parties, who may purchase this property may insist that they were purchasers, without any notice of disputes. 15. As far as the contempt case is concerned, the contention of the respondents is that implementation of the interim orders of this Court dated 19.05.2020 would result in granting saleable rights to the contempt petitioners, which could cause irreparable loss to the Government and that a stay vacate petition has also been filed in W.P.No.8907 of 2020. The justification given for non-compliance of the orders of this Court is that there is a duty cast on the respondents to protect the interests of the petitioner and existence/continuance of the four conditions are very much required to protect valuable Government Property. 16. Heard Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents in both the writ petition and the contempt case. 17. The controversy, shorn off all its details, is that the declarants (including Sri Korada Venkataswamy Naidu, his two sons and their wives, who are the petitioners herein) were required to handover Ac.28.84 cents of land in Madhurawada village. Subsequently, the Government accepted surrender of other lands in lieu of the lands in Madhurawada village. 17. The controversy, shorn off all its details, is that the declarants (including Sri Korada Venkataswamy Naidu, his two sons and their wives, who are the petitioners herein) were required to handover Ac.28.84 cents of land in Madhurawada village. Subsequently, the Government accepted surrender of other lands in lieu of the lands in Madhurawada village. However, Ac.11.14 cents of land was further required to be surrendered by the family of the declarant. The location of this land kept changing on account of the further applications made by the family of the declarant and consequential orders passed by the Land Reforms authorities. Finally, the location of the land was fixed as Ac.11.14 cents Sy.No.40 Part of Badanapadu village, Ravikamatham Mandal by way of the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal in LCC No.230/75 dated 05.10.2017. This order and the subsequent order in L.R.A.No.1 of 2018 passed on 07.09.2018 by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal are the subject matter of C.R.P.No.5417 of 2018, which is pending adjudication before this Court. It must also be remembered that the proceedings of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal dated 07.09.2018 have been suspended by this Court on 20.09.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in C.R.P.No.5417 of 2018. This effectively revives the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 05.10.2017, which would require the authorities to accept the surrender of Ac.11.14 cents of land in Sy.No.40 Part of Badanapadu village, Ravikamatham Mandal. 18. Apart from this, the petitioners have specifically pleaded that the Land Reform authorities have accepted the surrender of the land in Badanapadu Village and possession of the said land was also taken over. This fact has also been recorded in the order of this Court in W.P.No.1669 of 2019. The said observations are set out herein : “9. The writ petitioners purchased lands in an extent of Ac.11.14 cents in Sy.No.40-part of Badanapadu village under two registered sale deeds, dated 01.06.2016, bearing Nos.3046/2016 and 3047/2016. The said lands were offered as alternative land before the RDO. Pursuant to the order of the RDO, dated 05.10.2017, necessary representations along with sale deeds were submitted before the Tahsildar, Ravikamatam, and the same was accepted and acknowledgment was issued by the Tahsildar, on 10.10.2017, for taking over possession of Ac.11.14 cents in Sy.No.40-part of Badanapadu village from the writ petitioners and their sons, which were acquired under the aforesaid two registered sale deeds. On 11.12.2017, the District Collector addressed a letter to the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam in LCC.No.230/75 informing that the RDO, Visakhapatnam, has accepted an alternative land admeasuring Ac.11.14 cents covered by Sy.No.40-part of Badanapadu village, Ravikamatham Mandal, as surplus land in lieu of the land of an extent of Ac.11.14 cents in Sy.No.39/5 of Vemulavalasa village, Anandapuram Mandal, which was previously declared as surplus land in accordance with the orders, dated 10.12.2015, in LRA No.1 of 2018 passed by the LRAT. 10. In the light of the facts and discussion supra and as admittedly alternative land proposed was accepted in lieu of the surplus land of Ac.11.14 cents and in view of the suspension orders granted in C.R.P.No.5417 of 2018, pending further orders in the CRP, the petitioners now request for issuance of respective pattadar passbooks for the land admeasuring Ac.11.14 cents in Sy.No.39/5A and 39/5B of Vemulavalasa village of Anandapuram Mandal of an extent of Ac.5.57 cents each in favour of the petitioners, having submitted applications through mee-seva, on 22.09.2018. AS alternative lands are already surrendered and surrender is accepted, pending disposal of the revision petition, wherein suspension order is granted by the High Court, the petitioners cannot be denied their requests, as denial of their requests would put them to double jeopardy/peril. Therefore, their submission that their requests require reconsideration by the Tahsildar merit consideration as the petitioners cannot be put to disadvantage twice over. As rightly contended not allowing them to enjoy the subject lands for which they had made applications as well as the lands, which they have already surrendered in lieu of surplus land, would tantamount to denying enjoyment of double the extent of the land then the extent that is liable for surrender and in fact surrendered. 11. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned endorsement and remitting the matters to the Tahsildar, Anandapuram, to reconsider the applications of the petitioners for the purposes mentioned therein and for passing orders afresh, subject however to the result of CRP pending before this Court. The exercise in the above regard shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the decisions taken on the applications of the petitioners shall be communicated to them within a week thereafter.” 19. The exercise in the above regard shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the decisions taken on the applications of the petitioners shall be communicated to them within a week thereafter.” 19. It is also clear that this Court had set aside the impugned endorsement of the Tahsildar, Anandapuram Mandal, rejecting the applications of the petitioners for issuance of e-pattadar passbooks on the ground that the alternative land in Badanapadu village had already been taken over by the State. It is pertinent to note that these assertions of the petitioners have not been disputed by the respondents. 20. The respondents are primarily relying upon the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, to contend that the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal accepting surrender of land in Badanapadu village is incorrect. The respondents, however, seek to ignore the fact that this order of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal has been suspended by this Court in C.R.P.No.5417 of 2018 and no steps are taken for setting aside the said order of suspension or for disposal of civil revision petition. Further, the order of this Court in W.P.No.1669 of 2019 has been passed on the fact that the respondents have already taken over Ac.11.14 cents of land in Badanapadu village. 21. To restate the obvious, the petitioners were required to surrender 11.14 acres of land. The land in Vemulavalasa village was to be given initially. This was changed to Badanapadu village by the land reforms tribunal, at the request of the petitioners. The land in Badanapadu was also handed over and is in the possession of the land reforms authorities. At that stage an appeal was filed and the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal was reversed. This appellate order is now under suspension. In view of this fact situation, this Court in W.P.No.1669 of 2019, had directed the Tahsildar, Anandapuram, to do the needful in issuing necessary passbooks, etc., subject to the condition of the said documents being subject to the outcome of C.R.P.No.5417 of 2018. It must be noticed that no other condition was placed in exercise of the discretion by the Tahsildar, Anandapuram. 22. It must be noticed that no other condition was placed in exercise of the discretion by the Tahsildar, Anandapuram. 22. The correct course of action for the respondents would have been to challenge the order of this Court in W.P.No.1669 of 2019 by way of an appeal and to seek vacation of the order of this Court, dated 20.09.2018, in C.R.P.No.5417 of 2018. Neither course of action was undertaken, and the respondents decided to exercise their own power of review over these decisions of this court and imposed the aforesaid four conditions, even though no such authority or power was given to the respondents. In the circumstances, these conditions would have to be struck down. However, the requirement that fresh application be made under Mee-seva, as the earlier application has been closed, can be upheld as it is only a ministerial requirement which can be complied by the petitioners. 23. In the light of the above fact situation, it is not clear as to how the respondents can claim that they need not adhere to any of the directions of this Court and continue to act on their own, irrespective of the orders of this Court. 24. At this stage, the contention of the respondents in the counter affidavit filed in the contempt case requires to be set out. “It is submitted that implementation of the interim orders dated 19.05.2020 of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.8907 of 2020 would result in granting saleable rights to the contempt petitioners. Resultantly, the Government would be put to irreparable loss as any order in CRP No.5427 of 2018 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in favour of the Government cannot undo the transfer of title from one party to the other party. It is further submitted that creation of any third party rights / interest would result in endless litigation for the Government.” 25. The said pleading clearly smacks of clear and deliberate disregard for the proceedings of this Court. The contention is essentially to the effect that, the respondents will not obey the directions of this Court unless they deem it appropriate. The only redeeming feature, if any, in this entire proceeding, is that the respondents appear to be seeking to protect the interests of the State and their actions are not actuated by mala fides. 26. The contention is essentially to the effect that, the respondents will not obey the directions of this Court unless they deem it appropriate. The only redeeming feature, if any, in this entire proceeding, is that the respondents appear to be seeking to protect the interests of the State and their actions are not actuated by mala fides. 26. In these circumstances, W.P.No.8907 of 2020 is disposed of with the following directions : (a) It is open to the petitioners to make fresh applications under mee-seva for issuance of pattadar passbooks and for necessary mutation of the revenue records in their favour in relation to Ac.5.57 cents in Sy.No.39/5A and Ac.5.57 cents in Sy.No.39/5B of Vemulavalasa village, Anandapuram Mandal. (b) Upon such application being made, the respondents shall carry out necessary mutation and issue pattadar passbooks to the petitioners with the noting that the said mutation and issuance of pattadar passbooks has been made subject to the result of C.R.P.No.5417 of 2018. (c) The respondents shall not place any other restrictions or conditions for completing this process. (d) The said mutation and issuance of pattadar passbooks shall be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of an application in Mee seva from the petitioners. C.C.No.535 of 2020 : 27. The Conduct of the respondents in this case has been in violation of the directions of this Court. The averments in the counter affidavit filed in the contempt case also show that the respondents are unwilling to implement the orders of this Court. However, it is also clear that the action of the respondents has not been on account of any mala fides but under the belief that they are protecting the property of the State. In that view of the matter, this Court is taking a lenient view and closing this contempt case. 28. However, any further non-compliance of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.8907 of 2020 shall be viewed seriously. 29. Accordingly the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.