Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 151 (AP)

Chintapalli Jahnavi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-01-19

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2023
ORDER : 1. Both these writ petitions were taken up for hearing together as common questions of fact and law arise in the same. 2. The land involved in these writ petitions is in Sy. Nos. 290 and 293 of Undavalli village. 3. The writ petitioners in W.P. No. 7462 of 2018 (who are respondents 7 to 10 in WP. No. 16830 of 2018) claim to be the owners of the property having acquired the same under registered sale deeds. 4. The writ petitioners in W.P. No. 16830 of 2018 claim to be original assignees/legal heirs of assignees, who were allotted the land in 1978 through DKT pattas. Both the parties are claiming title and possession to the same property. 5. The prayer in W.P. No. 7462 of 2018 is as follows: “.......to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not disposing the claim of the Petitioners in respect of their lands admeasuring Ac. 37.63 Cents situated in Survey Nos.290 to 293 of Undavalli Village, Tadepalli Mandal, Krishna District as per Section 112 of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act 2014 (A.P. Act No. 11 of 2014) and the Andhra Pradesh Capital City Land Pooling Scheme Formulation and Implementation Rules, 2015 and set aside the order dated 18.01.2018 in Assignment Case D. Dis. No. 3946/2017-K of the Revenue Divisional Officer as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 19(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to take possession of the petitioners lands and decide their claim in accordance with the law or in the alternative in the interests of justice direct the 3rd respondent to take possession of the Petitioners lands and dispose the Petitioners claim in terms of the G.O.Ms. No. 41, MA and UD (CRDA-II) department, dated 17.02.2016 and Andhra Pradesh Capital City Land Pooling Scheme Formulation and Implementation Rules 2015 and pass......” 6. The prayer in W.P. No. 16830 of 2018 the prayer is as follows: “.....to pass an order or orders direction or a Writ or more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings No. D. Dis. The prayer in W.P. No. 16830 of 2018 the prayer is as follows: “.....to pass an order or orders direction or a Writ or more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings No. D. Dis. No. 3946/2017-K dated 18.01.2018 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 apart from being violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same by directing the 6th Respondent to process the Petitioner’s applications made under Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 and Andhra Pradesh Capital City Land Pooling Scheme (Formulation and Implementation) Rules 2015 and to extend all the benefits under the act and Rues the petitioners to the exclusion of the respondents 7 to 11 without insisting upon for incorporation of names of the petitioners in the revenue records in respect of lands admeasuring Ac. 39.11 cents in Sy. No. 290 to 293 of Undavalli Village, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District and pass.....” 7. Very extensive arguments were advanced by Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 7462 of 2018 and Sri V.R.N. Prashanth for the unofficial respondents in W.P. No. 7462 of 2018 and writ petitioners in W.P. No. 16830 of 2018. For the State, the Government Pleader argued the matters. 8. A reading of the prayers would also make it clear that both the parties want the order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to be declared as illegal, void etc. Both the parties for their own reasons claim that this order has to be set aside. 9. It is also to be noted that the submissions of the petitioners in W.P. No. 7462 of 2018 is that after the enactment of Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 (for short ‘Act 11 of 2014’) and the A.P. Capital City Land Pooling Scheme (Formulation and Implementation) Rules, 2015 (for short ‘the Rules’) they have made an application for development of the land and for allotment of a reconstituted plot in terms of the said Act and Rules. Questioning the delay in the disposal of the same, the writ petition is filed and the main prayer is for disposing the claim of the petitioners under the Act 11 of 2014. Questioning the delay in the disposal of the same, the writ petition is filed and the main prayer is for disposing the claim of the petitioners under the Act 11 of 2014. A prayer is also made to set aside the order dated 18.01.2018. 10. The fact that these writ petitioners made an application is also pleaded by the other set of writ petitioners in W.P. No. 16830 of 2018 and interim prayer in the second writ petition is to restrain 6th respondent from entertaining the said claims of the respondents 7 to 11. Thus, it is clear that at least on this issue the parties are ad idem. 11. Counsels took great pain to argue the matter. Issues about the flow of title, nature of the land, possession of the land etc. were all raised and argued. 12. Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthi, argued that the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘POT Act’) will not apply to the facts of the case since the land is not assigned land at all. He points out that unless there is an assignment with a condition of prohibiting the transfer/alienation, the said Act would not apply at all. He also in the course of his argument submitted that the copy of the patta has been filed by the writ petitioners in the second writ petition and it shows that the assignment is subject to payment of market value. He submits that no proof is filed to show that the land is ‘assigned’ land at all. Therefore, he submits that POT Act will not apply. He also submits that the Rules regarding assignment were not followed and that the notices in Form 1 and 2 do not contain details. 13. The crux of the issue that is raised and pleaded by the writ petitioners in W.P. No. 7462 of 2018 is that the petitioners are the owners of the land having purchased the same under five(5) sale deeds described in Para-2 of the writ affidavit. Thereafter, other issues are discussed including the provisions of the Act 11 of 2014 etc. It is also asserted at more than once place all the claims relating to the subject land are within the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent. The crux of the matter is that the rights of the parties are governed by Act 11 of 2014 and POT Act has no application. It is also asserted at more than once place all the claims relating to the subject land are within the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent. The crux of the matter is that the rights of the parties are governed by Act 11 of 2014 and POT Act has no application. 14. In reply to this, Sri V.R.N. Prashanth submits that the stand taken by the Government at various stages supports the case of the petitioners in W.P. No. 16830 of 2018 that the land is assigned land. In the alternative, he also submits that the writ petitioners in W.P. No. 7462 of 2018 are claiming ownership of the land as private patta land and that nothing prevented them from proving the same. He relies upon Kusampudi Sarada vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Bapatla, Guntur District, 2008 (3) APLJ 157 with regard to the condition of non-alienation. He submits that the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the pattas in this case had a condition of payment of market value. However, learned counsel submits that though the patta allotting the land in Sy.Nos.290 to 293 contained a condition, there is no proof filed to show that the market value was actually paid. In the written submissions, this issue is also raised. He also submits that since the petitioners in W.P. No. 7462 of 2018 have already filed an application for a re-developed plot claiming their ownership of the property, they should stick to their stand and prove their case before the appropriate authority. He also submits that a party coming to a Court with a specific stand cannot change their stand midway and claim the relief on other grounds. Lastly, he submits that complicated issues of fact are raised which cannot be decided in a writ petition. 15. The Government Pleader essentially argues that the lands are lanka lands classified as Government lands only and that they were assigned to Scheduled Caste people initially. The sale of the same is contrary to the conditions of the allotment/assignment. Therefore, he submits that the sale is a void sale. The active role of a Revenue official who signed as a witness in the sale deeds is also pointed out and it is averred that disciplinary action was taken against the said official. The sale of the same is contrary to the conditions of the allotment/assignment. Therefore, he submits that the sale is a void sale. The active role of a Revenue official who signed as a witness in the sale deeds is also pointed out and it is averred that disciplinary action was taken against the said official. According to the Government, the lands were also resumed and handed over to the writ petitioners in W.P. No. 16830 of 2018. 16. COURT: After examining the entire submissions made, documents filed etc. this Court notices that the specific case of the writ petitioners in W.P. No. 7462 of 2018 is that appropriate authority under the Act 11 of 2014 is vested with the authority to decide their claim for redeveloped plots on the loans of their claimed ownership. 17. This Court has therefore proceeding to look into this aspect initially. The important definitions according to Act 11 of 2014, that arise for consideration are, section 2(15) ‘development scheme’ section 2(22) ‘land pooling scheme’ section 2(30) ‘owner’ and section 2(35) deals with ‘reconstituted plot’. Section 2(22) talks of land pooling scheme, which is an assembly of a small land parcels under different ownerships into a larger land parcels. Section 10 deals with the functions of the Authority. Section 11 deals with the powers of the Authority. The Authority is described under Section 4. Section 10(12) authorises the Authority to acquire, sell land. Similarly section 10(13) empowers the Authority to acquire, sell land as an agent of the Government. Section 10(14) also gives power to the Authority to own and manage the property. For the purposes of the decision in this matter, sections 48 and 50 also assume importance. 18. Section 48 (1) is reproduced here under: 48. (1) The title of the land owners covered under the development scheme shall be verified with reference to the revenue records, registration documents and other relevant records of ownership of land by the Competent Authority and an order issued under his seal and signature confirming the acceptance or otherwise of the land for the development scheme. 19. This section clearly shows that the title of the land owners covered under the development scheme shall be verified with regard to the revenue records, registration documents and other relevant records of ownership by the competent authority. 19. This section clearly shows that the title of the land owners covered under the development scheme shall be verified with regard to the revenue records, registration documents and other relevant records of ownership by the competent authority. Section 50 of the Act dealing with disputed ownership is reproduced here under: 50. (1) Where there is a disputed claim to the ownership of any piece of land included in the area under the development scheme in respect of which a declaration of intention has been made and any entry in the record of rights or mutation relevant to such disputed claim is inaccurate or inconclusive, an enquiry may be held by Competent Authority in case of any development scheme at any time before the final allotment of the reconstituted plot/land for the purposes of deciding as to who shall be deemed to be the owner for the purposes of this Act and pass orders under his seal and signature. (2) Such decision shall not be subject to appeal but it shall not operate as a bar to a regular suit in a Court of competent jurisdiction. 20. This section makes it very clear that when there is a disputed claim, an enquiry can be held by the competent authority before the final allotment of the reconstituted plot or land and the authority can determine who shall be deemed to be the owner for the purpose of this Act. Section 50 (2) states that this order shall not be subject to an appeal, but leaves it open to an aggrieved party to file a civil suit. 21. Pursuant to this Act, the Land Pooling Scheme Rules were also enacted in 2015. The very introduction of these Rules states the following: 1. Introduction: In keeping with the will of the Government to build ‘people’s capital’ land procurement mechanism has been designed to be voluntary and based on consensual process of land pooling. Land pooling mechanism is mainly adopted for development of the capital city area wherein the land parcels owned by individuals or group of owners are legally consolidated by transfer of ownership rights to the Authority, which later transfers the ownership of a part of the land back to the land owners for undertaking of development for such areas. These rules are applicable to the capital city area for which zonal plans have been approved. These rules are applicable to the capital city area for which zonal plans have been approved. The broad objective of the scheme is to do justice to the families affected by the construction of a livable and sustainable capital city for the state of Andhra Pradesh by making the land owners and local residents as partners in development. (Emphasis supplied) 22. Rule 8 also provides for the procedure for verification of ownership. A time bound schedule is prescribed. In addition, the authority is also empowered to verify the land by field verification in case of assignment lands, Government lands etc. Verification of land records and certification of occupancy/veracity of ownership and the claim of the applicant can also be decided by the authority. Similarly, Rule 8(5) also provides a time schedule for verifying the claims of ownership of all the persons interested by conducting due enquiries for the purpose of ascertaining the true owner or owners. Rule 8(9) also clearly states that where disputes with regard to the ownership un-resolved they shall be referred to a Court of competent jurisdiction for a decision and that such referral shall not act as a bar for including the land under the land pooling scheme. 23. Even the Forms that are prescribed assume importance for the purpose of this decision. Any person, who is interested to relinquish, forgo his rights in favour of the CRDA and for allotment of a developed plot shall have to make these applications. 24. Form 9.3 and its contents are note-worthy. Clause 8 of this Form is as follows: 8. Further, I/We declare that the alienation/Transfer of land for land pooling scheme is not in contravention of the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Land reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973, The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. 25. This Form 9.3 clearly asserts that the applicant is the owner of the land and that he is in possession and that he/she is willing to relinquish/forgo his/her rights etc. that there are no Government lands in the schedule mentioned property. It also asserts that there are no pending civil disputes with regard to the title or possession. (Clause 9 and 10) 26. that there are no Government lands in the schedule mentioned property. It also asserts that there are no pending civil disputes with regard to the title or possession. (Clause 9 and 10) 26. This Court notices that the writ petitioners in W.P. No. 7462 of 2018 have already filed the requisite applications. The delay in disposal of the said applications under the above mentioned Act and Rules have prompted them to file the writ petition questioning the inaction. 27. In addition, this Court notices that an issue is raised in W.P. No. 16830 of 2018 that a general power of attorney was wrongfully registered vide document No. 682 of 1985 and 5 sale deeds under which the writ petitioners in W.P. No. 7462 of 2018 are claiming property were registered. Against the Revenue Inspector who signed as a witness in the said sale deeds and who supposedly facilitated the registration, some departmental proceedings were also initiated. It is also stated that two of the principals had died in December 1998 and November 1989, whereas sale deeds were executed on their behalf in 1992 with the general power of attorney. It is also asserted that the subject lands were resumed and handed over to the petitioners in W.P. No. 16830 of 2018. The legal heirs of the original assignees are claiming to be in possession of the property. In W.P. No. 16830 of 2018 the legal heirs etc. also assert that they have submitted their own applications for extending the benefit of the Act 11 of 2014 and the petitioners were also given Form 9.7 under Rule 8(2) of the Rules, which is an official receipt. A Police case was registered against the petitioners in W.P. No. 7462 of 2018 for trespass etc. Hence, the writ petition is filed questioning is the order dated 18.01.2018 and also directing the 6th respondent to consider the claims made by this set of writ petitioners. 28. Apart from that, this Court also notices that the various sections and Rules reproduced earlier clearly show that the power is vested with the appropriate authority under the Act 11 of 2014 to decide the question of ownership. Section 48 of the Act 11 of 2014 empowers the authority to verify the title of the land owners. Section 50 talks of disputed ownership. Section 48 of the Act 11 of 2014 empowers the authority to verify the title of the land owners. Section 50 talks of disputed ownership. Section 50 (1) empowers the authority to hold an enquiry and to decide who shall be deemed to be the owner. The procedure stipulated under Rule 8 empowers the authority to issue notices and to take a decision on the ownership. If the authorities come to the conclusion that the dispute cannot be settled by them, it can be referred to a Court of competent jurisdiction for a decision. The pleadings and contentions of both the parties is to the effect that they are the owners; that they are entitled to surrender their rights in the land and are eligible to be allotted a reconstituted plot. 29. Both the sets of petitioners before this Court are claiming that they have made the necessary applications for the allotment of plots under the LPS scheme and the issue is still pending with the respondent authority. There is an effective alternative remedy which is provided in the Act and the Rules. Both the parties claim to have invoked the same. In this Courts opinion, the appropriate authority under the Act, who is arrayed as respondent in both the writ petitions is to decide the matter. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that keeping the writ petition pending in these peculiar circumstances is not really warranted. Even otherwise, there are very seriously disputed questions of fact involved in these cases, starting with title to the property the execution of the sale deeds itself the possession etc. These cannot be decided in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 30. Sri M.R.K. Chakravarti made a vehement effort to argue that the POT Act will not apply and that the assignment does not have a condition of non-alienation. The available evidence is not clear to pronounce on this issue. It is clear that he has come to this Court with a specific case. He cannot ask for relief on other grounds. Therefore, this Court is not proposing to give any decision on this issue and in the opinion of this Court, this is also a matter which can and must be raised before the Authority. It is clear that he has come to this Court with a specific case. He cannot ask for relief on other grounds. Therefore, this Court is not proposing to give any decision on this issue and in the opinion of this Court, this is also a matter which can and must be raised before the Authority. If the land is found to be assigned land, it will have a bearing on the ultimate decision that will be taken by the Authority. If the land is not an assigned land (as argued by Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy), the Authority will have to decide on the future course of action. This is also a facet of the ‘ownership’ which has to be decided by the Authority under the Act 11 of 2014 and the Rules. 31. This Court therefore does not wish to pronounce anything on the merits of the matter. All the issues that are raised are left open for a decision by the competent authority. 32. The competent authority (i.e. respondent No. 3 in W.P. No. 7462 of 2018, and respondent No. 6 in W.P. No. 16830 of 2018) is therefore directed to look into the claims of both the sets of the petitioners in terms of Act 11 of 2014 and the Rules framed there under for the Land Pooling Scheme in the year 2015. Both the parties should be given an opportunity to file their claims and file documents etc. in proof of their claim over the property including their possession and enjoyment. The entire procedure should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the sets of the petitioners are directed to cooperate in the disposal of the case and not to seek any adjournment or to delay the matter. Needless to say the competent authority shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to both the parties. No coercive action should be taken pursuant to the order dated 18.01.2018 till a decision is taken by the Competent Authority. 33. It is also made clear that the decision should be taken on its own merits without being influenced by the fact that this Court passed an order. Lastly, it is made clear that any opinion expressed in the course of this order is for the limited purpose of disposal of these writ petitions only. 34. 33. It is also made clear that the decision should be taken on its own merits without being influenced by the fact that this Court passed an order. Lastly, it is made clear that any opinion expressed in the course of this order is for the limited purpose of disposal of these writ petitions only. 34. With the above observation, the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. 35. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.