Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1186 (AP)

K. Muneendramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-08-23

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2024
ORDER : Ravi Cheemalapati, J. The case of the petitioner is that the property admeasuring Ac. 1.61 cents in Sy.No.248/2 situated in Chintingunta Ramapuram Mandal, Chittoor District, is assigned to her by the Mandal Revenue Officer, vide D.K.T.No.263/4/1404, dated 15.12.1994 and ever since she is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property, pattadar passbook and title deed were also issued in her favor by mutating her name in the Revenue records. It is further case that the revenue officials came to her property and asked her to vacate the same without assigning any reasons and wherein she came to know that the revenue authorities would be allotting the land to the weaker sections for house sites under ‘Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu by evicting her. As such, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Dasari Varaprasad, learned counsel representing Sri Ch. Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Sri Dasari Varaprasad, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that the revenue authorities issued DKT Patta on 15.12.1994 and accordingly mutated the petitioner’s name in the revenue records and issued pattadar passbook in her favour. Now, the revenue authorities are trying to evict the petitioner from the subject property in order to allot the same to the weaker sections under the scheme called ‘Navarathnalu-Pedalandariki Illu’ without following law. He further contended that this Court granted interim orders on 22.01.2021 directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without following due process of law and prayed to dispose of the Writ Petition and making interim orders as final orders. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on counter submitted that the petitioner was not granted any pattadar pass book for the subject land. The petitioner is not in possession of the property. The pattadar passbook and other revenue records on which the petitioner is relying was created and fabricated. The land vests with Government alone and the government is at liberty to make use of the land for the public purpose in any manner, in the instant case the land is proposed for grant of house sites to the eligible persons. In the said circumstances, no indulgence can be shown on the petitioner and the Writ Petition deserves dismissal and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Perused the record. 6. In the said circumstances, no indulgence can be shown on the petitioner and the Writ Petition deserves dismissal and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Perused the record. 6. The main contention of the petitioner herein is that in order to give the subject land to some weaker section people under the scheme called ‘Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki Illu’, the respondent authorities are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without following the procedure contemplated under law. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the patta on which the petitioner relying is a fabricated one. 7. A perusal of the record would indicate that a patta has been granted in favour of the petitioner on 15.12.1994 and the petitioner’s name was found place in the revenue records with regard to the subject land to an extent of Ac.1.61 cents in Sy.No.248/2 in Chintingunta Ramapuram Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Chittoor District. But, in the counter, it is nowhere spelt out as to when and how this fake and fabricated patta was discovered and in what way the patta is fabricated particularly when the petitioner’s name found place in the revenue records. It was not even clearly mentioned as to how the respondents came to a conclusion that the said patta is fabricated. Unless pleaded clearly, the plea of fabrication or fake pattas cannot be countenanced. 8. This Court in similar set of facts has dealt with the issue in W.P.No.26086 of 2012. The relevant paragraphs are hereby extracted for quick reference : “Discovery of the fraud; details of the fraud; the parties to the fraud; the action taken pursuant to the discovery of the fraud against all the players/people involved must be pleaded and proved. In the absence of such details this plea cannot be accepted.” 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated supra, it is made clear that if the respondents are still of the opinion that the patta is fake and fabricated, they shall initiate appropriate action by putting on notice on the petitioner by giving an opportunity to defend her case. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is liable to be disposed of by passing the following order : “The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the subject property except under due process of law.” 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is liable to be disposed of by passing the following order : “The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the subject property except under due process of law.” 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.