Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1403 (AP)

Nandigam Bhaskara Rao v. Dhomathoti Meramma

2024-10-03

HARINATH NUNEPALLY, R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2024
JUDGMENT R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. 1. Heard Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri P.N. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 6. 2. The respondents 1 to 6 filed W.P.No.16173 of 2021. The case of the respondents 1 to 6 was that the land admeasuring Ac.1.20 cents in R.S.No.303/7 of Gopavaram Village, Musunuru Mandal, Krishna District had been purchased by their ancestors, under a registered deed of sale, dated 22.11.1960, and the said land was being used for community purpose by the people of the Harijanapeta of Gopavaram Village. It was contended that the said land was not fit for cultivation and was being used to conduct Gonthemma festival. Apart from this, certain statues are there on the land and a bus shelter was also constructed and part of the land was being used for people to answer calls of nature. 3. Respondents 1 to 6 have approached this Court on the ground that the official respondents, at the behest of some politicians and others, were seeking to evict them from the said land, without following any procedure established under law and to protect their interests. 4. This Writ Petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 10.08.2021. The learned Single Judge after considering the instructions of the Tahsildar, dated 09.08.2021, produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, had disposed of the writ petition in the following manner: "In view of the written instructions placed on record, no further adjudication is required in this matter as the respondents are not interfering and trying to remove the statues, thereby, no direction need be issued, recording the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners, except by due process of law, as the petitioners are the owners of the subject property as their ancestors purchased the property under registered sale deed referred supra, which is being used for communal purpose of Harijanavada. There shall be no order as to costs." 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein filed the present appeal after obtaining the leave of the Court. 6. There shall be no order as to costs." 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein filed the present appeal after obtaining the leave of the Court. 6. The appellant contends that he is the owner of the said Ac.1.20 cents of land in Sy.No.303/7 and that the respondents 1 to 6 have no right, title or claim over the said land. He contends that the land in Sy.No.303 was to an extent of Ac.2.40 cents, out of which, Ac.1.20 cents of land was sold, by way of a deed of sale, dated 17.11.1959, registered as Document No.3392 of 1959 and the remaining Ac.1.20 cents of land was sold to one Sri Nandigam Sita Ramaiah, by way of a deed of sale dated 09.09.1960, registered as Document No.2821 of 1960. He contends that the third deed of sale, under which the respondents 1 to 6 are claiming title and ownership, is an invalid deed of sale as the vendors, in the said deed of sale, did not have any land left to sell in survey No.303/7. The appellant also states that some attempts had been made to evict him from the land in his possession and he had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.3698 of 2021, and similarly he had also approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.8324 of 2021 as his application for fixation of boundaries was not being considered. The appellant contends that the respondent 1 to 6, being fully aware of his claim over the property, had deliberately suppressed these facts and had approached this Court with unclean hands. 7. Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the respondents 1 to 6 were fully aware of the right and title of the appellant over the land and the same can be seen from caveat petition filed by the appellant, before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid against the appellant and two others on 17.09.2020. Sri Sita Ram Chaparla would contend that the respondents 1 to 6, having filed a caveat, on account of the claim of the appellant, had deliberately suppressed these facts when they had filed the writ petition and did not inform the Court about the rival claim of the appellant nor make him a party to the writ petition. 8. Sri Sita Ram Chaparla would contend that the respondents 1 to 6, having filed a caveat, on account of the claim of the appellant, had deliberately suppressed these facts when they had filed the writ petition and did not inform the Court about the rival claim of the appellant nor make him a party to the writ petition. 8. Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the appellant, also submits that there were suits filed earlier, in relation to this property, under which his predecessors in title had also obtained orders of injunction. 9. The primary objection of the appellant appears to be the observation of the learned Single Judge that the respondents 1 to 6 are the owners of the land. Sri Sita Ram Chaparla submits that the said observation prejudices the interests of the appellant as any claim made by the appellant in any proceeding would be clouded by the aforesaid observations of the learned Single Judge. 10. Sri P.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6 would submit that the deed of sale, of 1960, was a registered deed of sale which confers title on the respondents 1 to 6. He would further submit that the land in question is barren land which is unsuitable for agriculture and contains statues, bus shelter and is being for community purpose. He would submit that a simple inspection of the land would show that the contention of the appellant that the land is agricultural land, is false. He would further contend that the appellant had already sold Ac.0.30 cents of land in the year 2020 to various persons, who have filed I.A.No.1 of 2024, to implead themselves on the ground that they were subsequent purchasers whose interest would be affected. Sri P.N. Murthy would contend that the appellant had deliberately suppressed these facts and has approached this Court with unclean hands. 11. Sri P.N. Murthy would also contend that the respondents 1 to 6 were aggrieved by the actions of the official respondents in seeking to evict them and had approached this Court on that basis. He would submit that in such circumstances, the question of impleading the appellant, against whom they had no complaint, as far as writ petition is concerned, would not arise nor was the appellant a necessary party for determination of the writ petition. Consideration of the Court: 12. He would submit that in such circumstances, the question of impleading the appellant, against whom they had no complaint, as far as writ petition is concerned, would not arise nor was the appellant a necessary party for determination of the writ petition. Consideration of the Court: 12. A perusal of the record and the submissions made by both sides, makes it clear that there are disputes, to the title to the land in question, between respondents 1 to 6 on one side and the appellant on the other. 13. The appellant, contends that the deed of sale of 1960, relied upon by the respondents 1 to 6, which had been mentioned in the operative part of the order of the learned Single Judge, is an invalid document. The respondents 1 to 6 deny this contention. These are disputed facts which cannot be decided by this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 14. However, this Court would have to accept the contention of the appellant that the observations of the learned Single Judge, to the extent of confirming ownership over the land, in favour of respondents 1 to 6 would prejudice the appellant as such a finding would effectively preclude any independent decision on the question of title of the said Ac.1.20 cents of land. 15. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of by holding that the observation of the learned Single Judge, in the operative part of the order extracted above, to the effect that the petitioners are the owners of the subject property as their ancestors purchased the property under a registered sale deed referred supra, which is being used for community purpose of Harijanawada, shall not be taken into account in the event of any proceedings or disputes between the appellant and the respondents 1 to 6, in relation to the said land in survey No. 303/7. 16. This Court also hastens to add that this order shall not be taken to mean that this Court has taken a view on the ownership or possession of the land in favour of either the appellant or the respondents 1 to 6. 17. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.