Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 973 (AP)

P. Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-10-10

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2022
ORDER : The petitioners are challenging the proceedings dated 20.03.2021 in Rc.No.2048/2020/B passed by the Sub-Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Penukonda, Anantapuram District/2nd respondent cancelling the entries in pattadar passbooks and title deeds standing in the names of the petitioners in respect of subject land and directing the Tahsildar, Penukonda/3rd respondent to conduct denovo enquiry by verifying the documents of both parties as per the A.P. Rights In Land And Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘The Act, 1971’) as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and devoid of principles of natural justice. 2. The petitioners’ case succinctly is thus: (a) The petitioners are owners and possessors of the subject land situated at Kondampalli Village, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuram District as shown below: S.No. Name of the Petitioner Sy.No Extent in Ac-Cts Nature of the land Petitioner number 1. P. Lakshmi Reddy 53-5 0.55 Assigned Petitioner No.1 2. G. Siva Kumar 53-6 0.77 -do- Petitioner No.2 3. G. Aswarthanarayana 53-6 0.38 -do- Petitioner No.3 4. Venkataramanappa 53-9 2.14 -do- Petitioner No.4 5. Biniki Bai 68-4 3.12 -do- Petitioner No.5 6. Ademma 68-5 2.56 -do- Petitioner No.6 (b) The above lands are assigned lands. The petitioner Nos.1 and 4 are the original D-Form Pattadars and other petitioners are the legal heirs of the original pattadars and all of them were issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds long time back and they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above lands. (c) Further, the then Revenue Division Officer (RDO) Penukonda in appeal vide D.Dis.No.2705/93(J) dated 13.05.1994, upheld the claim of the petitioners as assignees of the assigned lands and declared their rights. Aggrieved parties therein have not challenged the said order by carrying out further proceedings and thus the above order dated 13.05.1994 became final. (d) While so, without the knowledge of the petitioners, the kith and kin of aggrieved parties filed representation in D.Dis.No.2705/93(J) before the 2nd and 3rd respondents suppressing the fact that rights of the petitioners were already upheld in the previous proceedings way back in the year 1994. Though the representation is time barred, the 2nd respondent issued notice dt: 30.10.2020 to all the parties and called for specific documents alone, without providing copies of either the representation of the unofficial respondents 4 to 7 or the report of the 3rd respondent. Though the representation is time barred, the 2nd respondent issued notice dt: 30.10.2020 to all the parties and called for specific documents alone, without providing copies of either the representation of the unofficial respondents 4 to 7 or the report of the 3rd respondent. On 05.11.2020 the petitioners approached the office of the 2nd respondent and requested for the important documents i.e., representation of respondents 4 to 7 and report of the 3rd respondent if any to enable them to file a befitting reply/objections. However, due to prevalence of COVID-19 pandemic, the 2nd respondent and her staff members did not permit the petitioners to meet the 2nd respondent. With much persuasion, the 2nd respondent agreed to receive the petitioners’ documents as specified in the notice dt: 30.10.2020 and reply to the notice dt: 30.10.2020. (e) The petitioners did not receive any further notice or any other correspondence till 20.03.2021 from the office of the 2nd respondent. However, surprisingly, on 21.03.2021 the unofficial respondents trespassed into the lands of the petitioners in spite of the objections raised by the petitioners and started measuring the land. When questioned their illegal acts, the unofficial respondents have shown the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd petitioner obtained the photocopy of the said order and came to know about the illegal order passed by the 2nd respondent without issuing any notice or affording personal hearing to the petitioners. Even the documents produced by the petitioners were also not taken into consideration. The 2nd respondent has allowed the representation of unofficial respondents and directed to cancel the pattadar passbooks and title deeds of the petitioners in respect of the subject lands. Pursuant to the said order the 3rd respondent issued a consequential notice dated 24.03.2021 with incorrect particulars. (f) The order of the 2nd respondent is devoid of procedure contemplated under the Act, 1971 besides being illegal. The petitioners were not provided with copies of the documents and also the report of the 3rd respondent to file their counter. The 2nd respondent has no authority to decide the title between the parties. The 2nd respondent cannot pass orders on the basis of the representation filed by the respondents 4 to 7 since the representation cannot be treated as an appeal under law by contravening the provisions of the Act, 1971. Hence the writ petition. 3. The 2nd respondent has no authority to decide the title between the parties. The 2nd respondent cannot pass orders on the basis of the representation filed by the respondents 4 to 7 since the representation cannot be treated as an appeal under law by contravening the provisions of the Act, 1971. Hence the writ petition. 3. The 3rd respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition contending as follows: (a) When the 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to conduct denovo enquiry and submit report, in the meanwhile the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The 3rd respondent issued notices and after detailed enquiry recommended to cancel the entries relating to the subject lands and the 2nd respondent passed order as recommended by the 3rd respondent by following due process. The petitioners were also given opportunity to file revision against those orders. (b) As against the order of the 2nd respondent, revision is maintainable under the Act, 1971 before Joint Collector, Anantapuram. However, the petitioners have not pursued the administrative mechanism. (c) The land in Sy.No.53-1 to an extent of Ac.8.58 cents and in Sy.No.68-1 to an extent of Ac.14.34 cents is classified as patta land as per RSR of Kondampalli Village of Penukonda Mandal and Kamma Chinna Venkatappa was Diglot Pattadar and his name also recorded in Diglot. (d) The 2nd respondent issued notice dated 30.10.2020 to submit the documents to confirm the rights and title over the subject lands but however in response to the said notice, the petitioners have not submitted any evidence and not even attended before the 2nd respondent. Due to non-submission of the documentary evidence or explanation by the petitioners to the said notice, the 2nd respondent has given direction to the 3rd respondent to conduct denovo enquiry. The denovo enquiry is under process and before its completion and filing of the enquiry report, the petitioners have filed the writ petition. The present petitioners have not at all being dispossessed from the subject lands and their names are not deleted in respect of survey numbers or extents from the electronically maintained pattadar passbooks. The 2nd respondent has not at all passed final orders but only directed the 3rd respondent to conduct denovo enquiry. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The 4th respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition. The 2nd respondent has not at all passed final orders but only directed the 3rd respondent to conduct denovo enquiry. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The 4th respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition. (a) A representation was made before the 2nd respondent for cancellation of the entries made in pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The unofficial respondents are claiming title to the property on the ground that the land in Sy.No.53-1 to an extent of Ac.8.58 cents and in Sy.No.68-1 to an extent of 14.34 cents is a patta land standing in the name of M.Venkata Swamy alias Venkataramudu and he sold the same in favour of Chinna Venkatappa by means of a registered sale deed dated 26.07.1927 and the name of Chinna Venkatappa was shown in the RSR as pattadar. There are no sale transactions from the year 1927 and land belongs to the predecessors of the unofficial respondents. The said land was not surrendered to the Government under the provisions of the AP Land Reforms Ceiling On Agricultural Holdings Act, 1971 and the title of these respondents to the property is continued. (b) While so, the writ petitioners started claiming right to the property on the ground that the land is a Government land assigned in their favour. However, when once the documents clearly show that it is a patta land, the question of assignment of the patta land by issuing D-Form Patta to the petitioners by the Government does not arise. Even as per the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent there are no proceedings in DAR Dis No.2696/65, DAR Dis.No.27016/1965 and DAR Dis.No.696/88 dated 29.12.1988 and they were not traced and not available in the office and only one file in DAR Dis.No.171A/98, dated 24.04.1989 stands in the name of one Venkata Ramanappa. Therefore, the 2nd respondent on careful consideration of law and facts, allowed the appeal and directed the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry. The said order is legally valid and the claim of the petitioners that they are the owners of the property is not correct. The grounds shown in the writ petition are untenable. The petitioners cannot get any right over the property of these respondents. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The said order is legally valid and the claim of the petitioners that they are the owners of the property is not correct. The grounds shown in the writ petition are untenable. The petitioners cannot get any right over the property of these respondents. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri P.N. Sunil Kumar Reddy; learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondents 1 to 3; Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7. 6. Vehemently opposing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.N. Sunil Kumar Reddy would argue that the petitioners are assignees of the subject land and they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same since more than 2 ½ decades and recognizing their right, pattadar passbooks and title deeds have also been issued in their favour and ignoring the same the impugned order has passed by the 2nd respondent on the representation of the unofficial respondents. Learned counsel would submit that the subject lands are assigned lands. In the earlier round of litigation when the predecessors of unofficial respondents namely Kamma Venkatappa and 3 others questioned the assignment of the petitioners in an appeal vide D.Dis.No.2705/93(J) by claiming the right over self same Ac.8.58 cents in Sy.No.53-1 and Ac.14.34 cents in Sy.No.68-1 as patta lands, the then RDO, Penukonda conducted due enquiry and passed order dated 13.05.1994 holding that the subject lands i.e., Ac.8.58 cents in Sy.No.53-1 and Ac.14.34 cents in Sy.No.68-1 were originally private patta lands at the time of the resettlement and subsequently, those lands were relinquished to the Government vide R.Dis.No.50/41, dt: 01.07.1932 and lands were recorded as Anadeenam Waste (AW) from 01.07.1932 onwards and successive assignments were made in favour of different persons including the petitioners and their predecessors. Learned counsel would submit that the RDO, Penukonda dismissed the appeal by his order dated 13.05.1994. As against the said order Kamma Venkatappa and other appellants have not filed any further appeal or revision or civil suit and thus the said order became final and the petitioners have been enjoying the subject land without any let or hindrance. Learned counsel would submit that the RDO, Penukonda dismissed the appeal by his order dated 13.05.1994. As against the said order Kamma Venkatappa and other appellants have not filed any further appeal or revision or civil suit and thus the said order became final and the petitioners have been enjoying the subject land without any let or hindrance. He would submit that after more than 2 ½ decades now the unofficial respondents gave a representation to the 2nd respondent and without giving proper opportunity to the petitioners to file their counter and submit their records and without considering the legal effect of the earlier order in appeal in D.Dis.2705/93(J) passed by the RDO, Penukonda, the 2nd respondent has cancelled the entries in pattadar passbooks and title deeds standing in the name of the petitioners and directed a denovo enquiry by the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel would submit that the said order is without application of mind and against canons of law, inasmuch as the denovo enquiry is unwarranted. He prayed to allow the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri O. Manohar Reddy while supporting the impugned order argued that the said order has not taken away the alleged rights of the petitioners inasmuch as the 2nd respondent only directed the 3rd respondent to conduct denovo enquiry and therefore the petitioners can as well participate in the said enquiry and establish their right and title in respect of the subject lands. He would submit that the subject lands are the private patta lands of Kamma Venkatappa and the predecessors of the respondents 4 to 7 have purchased from him and his successors. At no point of time, those lands were relinquished to the Government so as to assume the character of the Government land. Therefore, the question of assigning those lands in favour of the petitioners does not arise. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue also argued in the same lines and submitted that the petitioners can participate in the denovo enquiry and establish their title, right over the subject lands. 9. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 10. POINT: I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue also argued in the same lines and submitted that the petitioners can participate in the denovo enquiry and establish their title, right over the subject lands. 9. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 10. POINT: I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. The petitioners’ claim is that the subject lands are the Government lands and some petitioners are the D-pattadars and some petitioners are the legal representatives of the original pattadars and all of them are enjoying the subject lands without any let or hindrance. Further, their main plank of their argument is that in the earlier round of litigation, one Kamma Venkatappa and 3 others filed appeal petition in D.Dis No.2705/93(J) on 21.08.1993 before the RDO, Penukonda claiming that the very same lands i.e., Ac.8.58 cents in Sy.No.53-1 and Ac.14.34 cents in Sy.No.68-1 of Kondampalli Village are the private patta lands and hence the assignment of those lands in favour different persons as illegal. However, after due enquiry the said appeal was dismissed by the RDO, Penukonda holding that the subject lands are the Government lands and the assignment was valid. Against the said order no further proceedings were taken-up by the said appellants i.e., Kamma Venkatappa and three others and therefore the said order became final. Now in respect of the same lands the unofficial respondents made a representation to the 2nd respondent as if they are the successors of the original appellants in the aforesaid appeal and without considering the legal effect of the order in the appeal, the 2nd respondent cancelled the entries in pattadar passbooks and title deeds standing in the name of the petitioners and ordered for denovo enquiry which is illegal and unjust. (a) On the other hand, the respondents are claiming that the subject lands are private patta lands of the ancestors of respondents 4 to 7 and order of the 2nd respondent directing denovo enquiry through the 3rd respondent is perfectly valid and legal. 11. In this context I perused the copy of the proceedings in D.Dis.No.2705/93(J), dated 13.05.1994. (a) On the other hand, the respondents are claiming that the subject lands are private patta lands of the ancestors of respondents 4 to 7 and order of the 2nd respondent directing denovo enquiry through the 3rd respondent is perfectly valid and legal. 11. In this context I perused the copy of the proceedings in D.Dis.No.2705/93(J), dated 13.05.1994. The proceedings would show that an appeal was filed by one Kamma Venkatappa and three others on 21.08.1993 before the RDO, Penukonda questioning the following assignment of the land: Sy.No. Extent Name of assignee 53-4 2.07 Acres P. Rami Reddy 53-5 0.90 Acres Lakshmi Reddy 53-6 1.50 Acres Jalipalli Narasimhappa 53-7 0.20 Acres Lakshmamma 53-8 1.20 Acres Lakshmamma 68-1 5.05 Acres H. Sanjeevappa 68-2 2.56 Acres Ramakrishna 68-4 3.12 Acres S. Krishna Naik 68-6 2.56 Acres Venkataramanappa (died) His mother ademma in possession. The main grounds urged are: 1. That the land in Sy.No.53-1 measuring Ac.8.58 cents and Sy.No.68- 1 measuring Ac.14.34 cents of Kondampalli Village is the ancestral property of Pedda Venkatappa and Chinna Venkatappa sons of Kamma Mopurappa. Pedda Venkatappa who sold his half joint share in the above lands along with other properties under a registered sale deed dt: 22-7-27 to Kamma Chinna Venkatappa. So Kamma Chinna Venkatappa became absolute owner which was devolved on his son Kamma Venkataramanappa and subsequently to the appellants. 2. The appellants are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property raising crops and paying land revenue towards Kulam No.6. 3. That the said land has been sub divided and assigned to the respondents behind the back of the appellants in collusion with the then Karnam of the Village by manipulating the records. The land is private patta land and the assignment made in favour of the respondents is liable to be set aside by restoring the land to its original status as private ancestral patta lands. 12. The R.D.O on enquiry passed the following order. “A perusal of the diglot of Kondampalli Village show that Sy.No.53-1 mesuring Ac.8.58 cents and Sy.No.68-1 measuring Ac.14.34 cents are classified as government dry lands and registered in Kulam No.6 in the name of Kamma Chinna Venkatappa. So therese are private patta lands at the time of resettlement. Subsequently these lands were relinquished to government as per R.Dis.No.50/41, dt: 1-7-32. So the land became A.W from 1-7-1932 onwards. So therese are private patta lands at the time of resettlement. Subsequently these lands were relinquished to government as per R.Dis.No.50/41, dt: 1-7-32. So the land became A.W from 1-7-1932 onwards. The argument of the advocate for the appellant, that the ancestors of the appellants purchased half share under the registered sale deed No.677 dt: 26-7-27 and got re settlement patta for Kulam No.6 issued in falsi 1334 goes to prove the lands to be patta lands as on that date, but by virtue of the relinquishment the lands became government lands. So the argument is not tenable. This view is also supported by the subsequent permanent changes effected in the revenue records as per 8A 14A/16, dt: 12-5-58 for Sy.No.53-1 effecting sub division and assignment in D.A.R.Dis.2696/65, dt: 6-8-56 and further sub division affected as 8A 231/88, dt: 2-2-79 and assignment in D.A.R.Dis 696/88 dt: 29-12-78 and in respect of Sy.No.68-1 the sub divisions effected as per 8A 156/66 dt: 12-5-58 and assignment as per D.A.R.Dis.No.2701/65 dt: 6-8-56, subsequent resumption of assigned land as per R.Dis.1316/88, dt:22-3-89 and further assignment in D.A.R.Dis.171/88, dt: 24-4-89. So it is established beyond doubt that their lands vested with government from 1932 onwards, and document subsequent to the date of relinquishment would be of some helpful to the appellants, where as the documents filed related to settlement patta for the fasli 1334, sale deed of 1927 which are prior to 1932. Regarding the further argument that the lands were in the possession of the appellants, by filing the cist receipt for the years 1971, 1976, 1979, 1981, 1999, 1992 and 1993 for Kulam No.6 also goes to show that the appellant paid cist to the lands included in Kulam No.6. As seen from the 10-1 extract for Kulam No.6 the disputed lands do not find place in the said Kulam No.6. As seen from the 10-1 extract for Kulam No.6 the disputed lands do not find place in the said Kulam from Fasli 1372 (as per present 10(1)). So the payment of land revenue for the disputed lands by the appellants is not acceptable. Added to this the appellants have not filed Adangal extracts to show their possession while the respondents possession is supported by the adangal extracts and cist receipts. So it is a well established lands even prior to the assignments made in favour of the respondents. Added to this the appellants have not filed Adangal extracts to show their possession while the respondents possession is supported by the adangal extracts and cist receipts. So it is a well established lands even prior to the assignments made in favour of the respondents. Even assuming for a moment that the lands were patta lands upto 1927 whose possession was lost subsequently for a period of more than 60 years, the petitioners lost their claim permanently and the grounds of appeal are not acceptable. In the above circumstances the appeal is dismissed as appeal lies to the joint collector, Anantapur within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.” 13. Thus as rightly submitted by the petitioners, in the earlier round of litigation i.e., in the appeal filed by Kamma Venkatappa and three others, the then RDO in his order dated 13.05.1994 held that the subject lands were the Government lands as they were relinquished to the Government as per R.Dis.No.50/41, dt: 01.07.1932 and thereafter those lands were subjected to successive assignments under different proceedings and the appellants could not establish their right, title and lost claim permanently and dismissed the appeal. 14. Be that it may, it appears the present unofficial respondents 4 to 7 submitted a representation dated 11.11.2021 as if the self same lands i.e., Ac.8.58 cents in Sy.No.53-1 and Ac.14.34 cents in Sy.No.68-1 of Kondampalli Village belong to their ancestors and the present writ petitioners and some others by misrepresentation of facts obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the said lands. A perusal of the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.2048/2020/B, dated 20.03.2021 of the 2nd respondent would show that the Tahsildar, Penukonda/3rd respondent submitted a report in respect of the aforesaid matter, basing on which, while cancelling the entries in pattadar passbooks and title deeds standing in the name of the petitioners, the RDO/2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to conduct denovo enquiry. I have carefully gone through the impugned order wherein the substance of the report of the 3rd respondent/the tahsildar is narrated. The 3rd respondent stated that on verification of his office record, it was noticed that DAR Dis No.2696/65, DAR Dis.No.27016/1965 and DAR Dis.No.696/88 dated 29.12.1988 were not traced out but only entries are recorded in the assignment grant register but no DA file is available in the office with regard to the DForm pattas. The 3rd respondent stated that on verification of his office record, it was noticed that DAR Dis No.2696/65, DAR Dis.No.27016/1965 and DAR Dis.No.696/88 dated 29.12.1988 were not traced out but only entries are recorded in the assignment grant register but no DA file is available in the office with regard to the DForm pattas. It should be noted that as per the order dated 13.05.1994 of the then RDO, Penukonda which is extracted supra, under the aforesaid DAR proceedings the subject land was assigned to different persons after the land was relinquished to the Government vide R.Dis.No.50/41, dt: 01.07.1932. Be that it may, neither in the report of the Tahsildar nor in the impugned order of the 2nd respondent, the appeal order in Dis.No.2705/93(J), dated 13.05.1994 of the then RDO, Penukonda was mentioned. As extracted supra, in the said order, the then RDO held that the subject lands were the Government lands and they were subjected to assignment under different assignment proceedings. Thus in essence the impugned order dated 20.03.2021 was passed by the 2nd respondent without reference to the crucial order dated 13.05.1994 of the then RDO, Penukonda. It is the vehement contention of the petitioners that the issue relating to the nature of the subject land and the assignment in favour of the petitioners and their predecessors were elaborately discussed and confirmed way back in the year 1994 itself and the said order became final and the same is binding on the present unofficial respondents 4 to 7 who are claiming as successors of the original appellants therein and therefore after long gap of more than 2 ½ decades the respondents cannot re-agitate the matter by way of a simple representation and the 2nd respondent cannot entertain such a representation and cancel the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners. 15. I find much force in the contention of the petitioners. Running the risk of pleonasm, it should be stated that unfortunately the 2nd respondent has not referred the earlier appeal order dated 13.05.1994 and its legal effect and binding nature on the present unofficial respondents 4 to 7. Therefore, the impugned order liable to be set aside in toto. Respondents 4 to 7 are concerned, they can approach a competent civil Court for vindicating their rights if any by following due process of laws applicable. 16. Therefore, the impugned order liable to be set aside in toto. Respondents 4 to 7 are concerned, they can approach a competent civil Court for vindicating their rights if any by following due process of laws applicable. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and proceedings dated 20.03.2021 in Rc.No.2048/2020/B of the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside with a liberty to the respondents 4 to 7 to approach a competent civil Court to vindicate their rights in respect of the subject lands by following relevant laws applicable in the process. Till then the respondents shall not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the subject lands. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.