Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 217 (AP)

Datla Narayana Raju v. State Of AP

2023-01-26

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2023
ORDER : W.P.No.24872 of 2020 This writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action on the part of the respondents 2 to 6 herein in not taking any action to evict the encroacher/7th respondent, who is obstructing the villagers to go and utilize the burial ground Ac.3.96 cents in Sy.No.79/1 of Sagipudi village, Dondapudi Gram Panchayath, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District basing on the fabricated Patta L.D.No.183/2012/139 to an extent of Ac.3.10cents in survey No.79/1 of the Tahsildar, Gopalapuram, in view of the proceedings in Rc.No.260/2020/SA, dated 18.06.2020 of the 4th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 6 to take action against the 7th respondent and evict him and handed over the burial ground to the gram panchayat for utilization of the villagers as per the said endorsement, dated 18.06.2020 by construct the compound wall around the burial ground..”. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his property in R.S.No.79/1 in Sagipadu Village, Dondapudi Panchayat, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District under the guise of an impugned oral proceedings of the respondents 2 and 4 under Land Acquisition Act with intention to wrongful loss to the petitioners on the ground of „Government Lands? as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, violative of Article 300-A, 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders….” 3. As the issues in these two writ petitions are interrelated, these writ petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order. The parties hereinafter will be referred to with their status in W.P.No.24872 of 2020. 4. The case of the petitioners is that for the last 100 years the burial ground of Sagipudi Village, Gopalapuram Mandal to an extent of Ac.3.96 cents in Sy.No.79/1 was allotted by the Grama Panchayath for the purpose of funeral activities of demised persons in the village and since then the villagers are using the same for their customary funerals. 4. The case of the petitioners is that for the last 100 years the burial ground of Sagipudi Village, Gopalapuram Mandal to an extent of Ac.3.96 cents in Sy.No.79/1 was allotted by the Grama Panchayath for the purpose of funeral activities of demised persons in the village and since then the villagers are using the same for their customary funerals. As some encroachers have occupied the said burial ground, the villagers made a representation before the District Collector dated 16.09.2019 through Spandana Programme and after receipt of the said representation, the District Collector directed the Thasildar to take action for eviction of the encroachers from the burial ground. Pursuantly, the Tahsildar made an endorsement, dated 01.10.2019 informing that they are taking steps to evict the encroachers. But the 7th respondent obstructed the officials by showing the patta issued by the 4th respondent/Tahsildar stating that it is a private land and that, he filed W.P.No.21068 of 2019. When an application, dated 20.05.2020 was made to the 4th respondent by a villager by name Sri Mallipudi Yesu Ratnam under Right to Information Act requesting as to whether a patta can be granted to private persons for the land classified as burial ground of the village, if so, under which regulations. In response to the same, it is informed that the land to an extent of Ac.3.96 Cents in Sy.No.79/1 as per the Revenue records of Gopalapuram Mandal has been recorded as burial ground and no patta has been issued from their office in favour of the 7th respondent. Inspite of the same, the authorities have not evicted the 7th respondent from the burial ground, hence, they filed the W.P.No.24872 of 2020. 5. It is the case of the 7th respondent, who is writ petitioner in W.P.No.21068 of 2019, that his father by name Tanuku Kovvadayya has acquired the agricultural land in an extent of Ac.3.10 cents in R.S.No.79/1 and enjoyed the same during his life time and since more than seven decades their family is enjoying the said property. It is further submitted that the 4th respondent/Thasildhar issued Patta vide L.D.No.183/2012 dated 09.02.2012 in favour of the 7th respondent. It is further submitted that the 4th respondent/Thasildhar issued Patta vide L.D.No.183/2012 dated 09.02.2012 in favour of the 7th respondent. It is further stated that the 7th respondent issued legal notice, dated 22.10.2019 to notice, dated 12.09.2019 issued by the 5th respondent/Gram Panchayat, which was issued on the oral instructions of the 4th respondent/Tasildhar to acquire the said land to issue the house site pattas to others, who are the followers of local politician, without following the due process of Law. It is further stated that the 4th respondent/Tasildhar visited the village and proclaimed that the 7th respondent will be dispossessed from his property, as such, he filed the W.P.No.21068 of 2019. 6. The 4th respondent in W.P.No.24872 of 2020 filed counter denying the allegations inter alia contending as per the revenue records, the land in R.S.No.79/1 for an extent of Ac.3.96 cents situated in Sagipadu Village of Gopalapuram Mandal mentioned as ‘smasanam’ burial grounds till this date and the said land is being habitually used by BC caste people of the village for burial and cremations since their ancestors. It is also further contended that as per the assignment register and revenue records of Sagipadu Village, there is no entry and no D-Form patta was issued in the name of Sri Vemula Kovvadayya, who is the father of 7th respondent, till this date and the D-Form Patta with L.D.No.183/2012, dated 09.02.2012 is a fake patta and the 7th respondent encroached the land in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in R.S.No.79/3 of Sagipadu Village for cultivation, as such, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. The 5th respondent filed counter in W.P.No.21068 of 2019 denying the allegations inter alia contending that the land in an extent of Ac.3.96 cents in Sy.No.79/1 was classified as burial ground in the revenue records and there is no proposal for giving the house site pattas in the burial ground land and the 7th respondent, who is writ petitioner in W.P.No.21068 of 2019, never been in possession of the burial ground land. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. The 7th respondent also filed counter reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.21068 of 2019. 9. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. The 7th respondent also filed counter reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.21068 of 2019. 9. Heard Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4, Sri N.Srihari, learned Standing Counsel for 5th respondent and Sri Majji Suri Babu, learned counsel for the 7th respondent. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that Sy.No.79/1 is classified as burial ground and as the 7th respondent is causing obstruction to the petitioners and other villagers from using the said burial ground claiming that a patta was granted in his favour, they brought the same to the notice to the revenue authorities. The revenue authorities, vide proceedings, dated 18.06.2020 to the application made by a villager, Mallipudi Yesurathnam under RTI Act, informed that no patta was granted in favour of the 7th respondent, which is placed on record and drawn the attention of this Court. Inspite of the said proceedings, the respondent authorities did not take any action, as such, the petitioners prayed to pass appropriate orders. 11. On the other hand, Sri Majji Suri Babu, learned counsel representing Sri Gandham S.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the 7th respondent (writ petitioner in W.P.No.21068 of 2019), in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit in W.P.No.21068 of 2019 contended that the father of the 7th respondent acquired the land to an extent of Ac.3.96 cents in R.S.No.79/1 of Sagipadu Village, Dondapudi Grama Panchayat, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavri District and since then they are in the possession of the property, as such, the 7th respondent has been issued patta L.D.No.183/2012, dated 09.02.2012 by the revenue authorities which is placed on record and drawn the attention of the Court to the same. Learned counsel further contended that the 5th respondent has issued notice dated 12.09.2019 and to the said notice, the 7th respondent issued a reply notice through his counsel, which is placed on record and drawn the attention of this Court to the same. Learned counsel further contended that the 5th respondent has issued notice dated 12.09.2019 and to the said notice, the 7th respondent issued a reply notice through his counsel, which is placed on record and drawn the attention of this Court to the same. In the said notice, dated 12.09.2019 nowhere it is stated that the said land is a burial ground and even though received the said reply notice, the respondent authorities without passing any orders tried to evict the 7th respondent, without following the due process of law, which is illegal and arbitrary, hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, during the pendency of the writ petition, this Court has directed the Joint Collector to enquire into the issue and asked to file a report and accordingly, the Joint Collector filed his report categorically stating that the land is a burial ground and the patta claimed by the 7th respondent is fake. Inspite of the said report, the respondent authorities did not evict the 7th respondent. 13. In reply, learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that even the petitioners in both these writ petitions in a post haste manner approached this Court without giving any breathing time to the authorities to take steps as per law. 14. As per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the authorities are not taking steps as per law to evict the 7th respondent, whereas as per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 7th respondent, the authorities are trying to evict the 7th respondent, without following the due process of law. 15. 14. As per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the authorities are not taking steps as per law to evict the 7th respondent, whereas as per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 7th respondent, the authorities are trying to evict the 7th respondent, without following the due process of law. 15. In view of the above, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court is inclined to dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions: i) The respondents 4 and 5 are hereby directed to verify the grievance of the petitioners in W.P.No.24872 of 2020, against the 7th respondent (writ petitioner in W.P.No.21068 of 2019) and if they come to a conclusion that the 7th respondent is in possession of the land classified as burial ground, they shall take steps according to law duly taking the report of the Joint Collector after giving a notice and an opportunity of personal hearing to all the parties and pass appropriate orders as per law and communicate the same to the stake holders within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any observations made in this order should not come in the way of the authorities in passing the order. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.