Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 436 (AP)

V. R. Santha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-02-22

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2023
ORDER : 1. With the consent of all the learned counsels appearing for the parties both these writ petitions themselves were taken up together for hearing. 2. Sri S.S. Prasad, learned senior counsel appears for the writ petitioners. He argued the matter at length. Learned senior counsel submits that the writ petitioners are the owners of the property measuring Ac.17.32 cents in Sy.Nos.385, 386 and 387. Later, the survey numbers were sub-divided as Sy.Nos.385/1, 385/2, 386/1, 386/2, 387/1 and 387/2 of Ramapuram Village. The petitioners claim to have secured their title through K. Ramaswamy Vodayar and others who granted pattas to the claimants under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948. It is stated that thereafter the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the property and have developed the same. They claim to have developed a mango garden in the said area and were enjoying the property. The 2nd respondent, according to the learned senior counsel, exercised suo motu revision on the representation of a third party and cancelled the pattadar pass books granted to the petitioners and also directed the resumption of the land. According to the learned senior counsel, the patta was granted in 1980. Pattadar pass books were granted in 2001 and thereafter and order of cancellation was passed on 15.11.2001. He submits that the whole action is arbitrary and is barred by law. He also submits that since a ryotwari patta was granted to the vendors, the land ceased to be a Government land and that therefore, the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) does not apply. Lastly, he submits that while exercising the Act, the Joint Collector cannot pronounce anything on the validity of the patta granted under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948. Relying upon a compilation of case law, learned senior counsel argues that the revision is patently barred by time. He relies upon : (1) State of H.P. and others v. Rajkumar Brijender Singh and others, (2004) 10 SCC 585 , (2) Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport and others, (2010) 8 SCC 467 , (3) A. Janardhana v. Union of India and others, (1983) 3 SCC 601 , (4) Surinder Singh v. State of H.P. and others, 2006 (2) ShimLC 237 and (5) Lingamdinne Chandrasekhar Reddy and others v. Joint Collector, Kadapa and others, 2009 (4) ALT 593 . 3. 3. The primary contention basing on the first four judgments is about the delay and on the basis of the last judgment he argues that under the Act, while exercising power of revision, the Joint Collector cannot pronounce on the legality of the patta granted under the Estate Abolition Act. Learned counsel points out that the Joint Collector has also ignored section 12 of the Act, which states that nothing in the Act shall apply to the land belonging to the State Government. While holding that the land is State Government land, learned senior counsel submits that the Joint Collector cancelled the pattas. In addition, he also submits that W.P.No.10976 of 2022 had to be filed against the Government since the respondents were interfering with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of the land. He submits that the issue of law and fact are similar, but in W.P.No.10976 of 2022 the prayer is for a Mandamus against the invasion of the petitioners rights. Learned senior counsel in conclusion submits that if W.P.No.10837of 2010 is heard and allowed on merits, as a consequence, W.P.No.10976 of 2022 should also be allowed. 4. In W.P.No.10976 of 2022, the State has filed a detailed counter and Government Pleader for Revenue argued on the merits of the matter. According to the learned Government Pleader, Sy.Nos.385, 387 of Ramapuram Village are classified as Kaluva poramboke and Gutta poramboke. In 1970, the land was sub-divided and pattas were assigned to about six people. Since the assignees did not cultivate the land, possession was taken over by the State. It is also pointed out that when Ramaswamy Vodayar filed an application under the Estate Abolition Act, the Joint collector rejected the same. The title of the petitioners is very strongly refuted and disputed by the learned Government Pleader. It is asserted that the property which is in the custody of the Government was taken back from the assignees who failed to cultivate the land. It is also argued that the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.223 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Chittoor and after protracted trial, the writ petitioners case as plaintiffs was dismissed since they did not establish their possession. It is also pointed out that land in Sy.Nos.387/1, 387/2 are occupied by the petitioners and that they are Government lands. It is also pointed out that land in Sy.Nos.387/1, 387/2 are occupied by the petitioners and that they are Government lands. It is also submitted that as the petitioners are not in possession of the property and Ac.0.85 cents of land was identified for allotting house site pattas for eligible people and the allotment of the land was being made after the land was cleared of rocks and bushes. An amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was also sanctioned to the beneficiaries. With regard to the ryotwari patta claimed by the writ petitioners, it is submitted that the orders passed by the particular Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer are overruled and in fact Government issued a memorandum dated 25.04.1984 cancelling all such orders that have been passed by the particular Joint Collector and Settlement Officer. Along with the counter affidavit, the Government Pleader has filed the adangal copy to show that the land in Sy.No.387/8 is classified as Gayalu and is unfit for cultivation. Copies of D-Form pattas issued to others are also filed. Learned Government Pleader also relies upon the findings of the learned Junior Civil Judge in O.S.No.223 of 2005, wherein on merits, the claim of the petitioners’ possession of the land was negatived. 5. On behalf of respondent No.4, I.A.No.2 of 2022 is filed to implead the petitioner as respondent No.4. Counter affidavit is also filed to this application. After hearing the counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the said interlocutory application should be allowed since in the opinion of this Court the presence of the 4th respondent is necessary for effective adjudication and the application is thus allowed. 6. Along with the implead application, I.A.No.3 of 2022 is also filed by the 4th respondent, wherein he sought for vacation of the interim order. 7. Sri O. Uday Kumar, learned counsel relies upon the judgment in O.S.No.223 of 2005 between the present writ petitioners and the defendants including the present 4th respondent-Jayasankar. In this suit, the writ petitioners are the plaintiffs. Their claim is ultimately negatived by the Court. Learned counsel relied upon this judgment to argue that since a Court of competent jurisdiction after protracted trial negatived the case of the petitioners, this Court cannot grant any relief more particularly in W.P.No.10976 of 2022. He also points out that the writ petitioners filed an appeal against the said decree. Their claim is ultimately negatived by the Court. Learned counsel relied upon this judgment to argue that since a Court of competent jurisdiction after protracted trial negatived the case of the petitioners, this Court cannot grant any relief more particularly in W.P.No.10976 of 2022. He also points out that the writ petitioners filed an appeal against the said decree. An interlocutory application is also filed to withdraw the said appeal, namely I.A.No.50 of 2019, but the same was dismissed by the Court and the appeal is still pending. Lastly, he submits that all these facts are suppressed by the writ petitioners and the present writ is filed. On the ground of non-disclosure of material facts and suppression of facts, learned counsel argues that the writ petition should be dismissed particularly, as a Mandamus is an equitable relief. He relies upon a compendium of case law which are as follows : (1) State of A.P. and another v. T.Suryachandra Rao (2005) 6 SCC 149 (2) Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra and others (2005) 7 SCC 605 (3) Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2013) 2 SCC 398 (4) Oswal Fats and Oils Limited v. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and others (2010) 4 SCC 728 (5) Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Chennai v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and another (2011) 5 SCC 496 (6) Sciemed Overseas Inc. v. BOC India Limited and Others (2016) 3 SCC 70 8. COURT: This Court after considering all the submissions notices that as far as W.P.No.10976 of 2022 is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, there is no express and clear description of the threat of dispossession. The essential conditions that must be pleaded in such a case are the settled uninterrupted possession of the petitioners and the impending threat to the same from the respondents. In the opinion of this Court neither of these two is spelt out or pleaded with clarity. 9. Both the learned Government Pleader and Sri O. Uday Kumar have relied upon the judgment in O.S.No.223 of 2005. This Court notices that the schedule of the property covered in the said suit is: SCHEDULE Chittoor District – Chittoor Sub District - Gudipala Mandal, 197 Ramapuram Village accounts lands situated at Chalicheemalapalle Village in: (1) S.No.385/2-Dry- Extent Ac.0.82-1/2 cents. (2) S.No.387/2-Dry - Extent Ac.3.88-1/2 cents. This Court notices that the schedule of the property covered in the said suit is: SCHEDULE Chittoor District – Chittoor Sub District - Gudipala Mandal, 197 Ramapuram Village accounts lands situated at Chalicheemalapalle Village in: (1) S.No.385/2-Dry- Extent Ac.0.82-1/2 cents. (2) S.No.387/2-Dry - Extent Ac.3.88-1/2 cents. (3) S.No.385/1 - Dry - Extent Ac.3.82-1/2 cents. (4) S.No.387/1- Dry - Extent Ac.3.88-1/2 cents. Lands situated at Gudipala Mandal-No.5 Lakshmambapuram Village accounts - situated at Chalicheemalapalle Village:- (5) S.No.386/1 - Dry - Extent Ac.0.95 cents. (6) S.No.386/2 - Dry - Extent Ac.0.95 cents. Land situated at 197 Ramapuram Village accounts: (7) S.No.385, 386, 387 dry in the three survey numbers and extent of Ac.1.20 cents. The above said items 1 to 8 are situated at one place within the following boundaries:- North: Mango garden belongs to Bujalingam Naidu, West: Lands of Papamma and others, East: Gutta and the land purchased by the Government from Pinayakapani, to given to Harijans for cultivation, South: Gutta, land of 4th defendant and Vijayan and his brother. 10. These lands are in survey numbers Sy.Nos.385, 386 and 387. The plaint schedule shows that they are one contiguous bit. A reading of this judgment and decree would reveal that the present petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit. Defendant No.5 in the suit is respondent No.4 in W.P.No.10976 of 2022. The 2nd petitioner was examined as P.W.1. The sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners are marked as documents. Pattadar pass books are also marked along with electricity receipts etc. An advocate commissioner was also appointed. For the respondents, Ex.B.1 to B.33 were marked. Four (4) witnesses were examined. In page 16 of the judgment, the trial Judge relied upon the DKT pattas and pass books issued to other individuals. Revenue entries were also perused. Then, the Court came to the conclusion that the land was resumed by the Government after the cancellation of the ryotwari patta. With regard to the cancellation of the Patta, the respondents relied upon Ex.B.3, which is the memorandum dated 25.04.1984 by which the orders passed by the concerned Officer were cancelled. The status quo order granted in W.P.No.10893 of 2010 by this Court was also brought to the notice of the Court. Copy of the status quo order was marked as Ex.A.20. The Tahsildar was examined as D.W.1. The status quo order granted in W.P.No.10893 of 2010 by this Court was also brought to the notice of the Court. Copy of the status quo order was marked as Ex.A.20. The Tahsildar was examined as D.W.1. The classification of the land as per Ex.B.6 was noted as Kaluva and Gutta poramboke lands. The same was spoken of by DW.3 also. Ultimately, the Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to produce any cogent evidence that on the date of the purchase of the property, their vendors were in possession or that after the purchase of the property, the plaintiffs-writ petitioners are in possession of the property. Admittedly, against this case, A.S.No.71 of 2016 is filed. Petitioners made an attempt to withdraw the said appeal by filing I.A.No.50 of 2019. The said application was dismissed on 05.02.2020 and a copy of the order passed is also filed. Therefore, it is clear that the said appeal is still pending. 11. Apart from this, this Court also notices that there are very seriously disputed questions of fact. The possession of the petitioners in 2022 when W.P.No.10976 of 2022 has filed is doubtful. No documents are independently filed to show that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property. 12. That judgment and decree in O.S.No.223 of 2005 was passed in March, 2016. Adverse comments were made about the documents and the possession of the plaintiffs. Yet when the second writ, W.P.No.10976 of 2022 was filed, clear and categorical evidence to show the possession of the petitioners and/or the threat of dispossession is not visible. In the absence of adequate pleading and proof to show the petitioners possession or the threat of dispossession, this Court holds that the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief in W.P.No.10976 of 2022. 13. Coming to W.P.No.10839 of 2010, while the arguments of the learned senior counsel appearing to be attractive at the first blush, a deeper consideration of the issues would reveal that many of the points that are raised in the course of the writ petition and the submissions made were also subject matter of the suit which was dismissed. Admittedly, the appeal is also pending. The attempt of the writ petitioners to withdraw the appeal has also not yielded any result. Admittedly, the appeal is also pending. The attempt of the writ petitioners to withdraw the appeal has also not yielded any result. It is also a fact that the 4th respondent joined in W.P.No.10976 of 2022 and has also been independently fighting for his “right”. The issues raised in the writ petition also pertain to the identity of the property, the extents, the boundaries, the classification of the land as Kaluva and Gutta poramboke etc., the possession as on date of the filing of the writ petition and subsequent possession along with title are issues, which arise for determination. These are all disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided in this writ petition. As rightly pointed out, the Joint Collector in the impugned order has entertained the case long after the Pattadar Pass Books were issued, decided certain aspects of ‘title’ and made certain observations which are not legally sustainable with regard to ryotwari patta etc., under the Estate Abolition Act. Hence, the said order dated 20.03.2010 is set aside. On a consideration of the entire issue considering the seriousness of the facts/issues (which include classification of the lands; occupation of lands etc.,) and the scheme of the Act including Section 8(2) of the Act, the petitioners are directed to agitate and establish their claims before the civil Court only. A writ is not a proper remedy to decide the issues raised. Till the issue attains a legal finality, the revenue entries are directed to be kept as ‘Disputed’ and not changed. No finding is given on the merits of the petitioners claim. 14. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief in W.P.No.10976 of 2022 while W.P.No.10839 of 2010 is partially allowed along with certain directions. 15. W.P.No.10976 of 2022 is dismissed and W.P.No.10839 of 2010 is partially allowed. No order as to costs. 16. In view of dismissal of W.P.No.10976 of 2022, no further orders are necessary in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.10976 of 2022. I.A.No.2 of 2022 in W.P.No.10976 of 2022 is allowed and Office is directed to make necessary amendment to the cause title. As a sequel, the other miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.