Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1467 (AP)

Potnuru Lakshmi Kumari v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-10-18

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2024
ORDER : K. Manmadha Rao, J. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is that, the land in Sy.No.24/3D2 is not converted by any Ryotwari patta, the list of the lands hold by the 2nd respondent for the propose of Ryotwari assessment was published by the Pendurthy in FORM VIII in the year 1986, in which, the Sy.No.24/3D2 was not there, only the Sy.No.24/1 that Aa 7.75 cents only. The land holds by the petitioners are not covered by list published by the MRO therefore the 2nd respondent herein without any due process of law, illegally interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners since 1.6.2010 the 2nd respondent trying to dispossess the petitioners from their peaceful possession of the residential plots without any notice or any due process of law. 3. This Court vide order dated 26.04.2012 while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim direction in WPMP No.15703 of 2012 in WP No12529 of 2012, reads as under : “There shall be a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the land in question without following due process of law. It is also made clear that the petitioners shall to proceed with any other constructions.” 4. Counter affidavit has been field by the 2nd respondent in WP No.12569 of 2012. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia stating that the petitioners cannot take the advantage of entry of broad classification of land mentioned in the records as "Zeroyati" which was prepared by the concerned authorities as common proforma for their administrative convenience. On the basis of alleged entry they cannot say that the land said to have been purchased by them is a private property. Simply because it is mentioned as Zeroyati, it cannot exclude the rights of the Temple and the Temple is equally entitled for Ryotwari Patta under the provisions of A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryothwari) Act, 1956. On the basis of alleged entry they cannot say that the land said to have been purchased by them is a private property. Simply because it is mentioned as Zeroyati, it cannot exclude the rights of the Temple and the Temple is equally entitled for Ryotwari Patta under the provisions of A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryothwari) Act, 1956. It is further stated that the petitioners are taking steps to proceed with construction in the above extents, the same is objected in routine inspection being made by land protection cell and the same cannot be found fault, since the petitioners are not entitled to make any constructions in the land belonging to the Temple as such they are liable to be evicted under due process of law. 5. Heard Sri N. Saida Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri N.V.S. Prasad Varma, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that, the 2nd respondent visited the house sites of the petitioners and tried to dispossess them from their respective house sites, without having any right or title in the land in St No.24/3D2 and continuously preventing the petitioners to enter in their respective house sites illegally without any due process of law. He further submits that the respondents are being the institutional forces and the petitioners are unable to protect their possession without statutory protection from this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to issue a direction to the 2nd resident not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. 7. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in these writ petitions. He submits that the petitioners have invented the cause of action with false and malafide intention by filing these writ petitions in order to obtain orders against the 2nd Respondent Devasthanam and under the guise of said orders, they are attempting to make constructions in the Devasthanam land. Thus, it is just and necessary to vacate the interim direction granted in W.P.M.P.No.15703/2012 in W.P.No.12529/2012. He further submits that some of the individuals have filed Writ Petition Nos. Thus, it is just and necessary to vacate the interim direction granted in W.P.M.P.No.15703/2012 in W.P.No.12529/2012. He further submits that some of the individuals have filed Writ Petition Nos. 17359 of 2008, W.P.No.26424 of 2008 and W.P.No.14626 of 2010 against Simhachalam Devasthanam claiming certain extents of land in the above survey number, which are still pending. Learned counsel for the respondents mainly contended that the land said to have been purchased by the petitioners from the third parties under various sale deeds are null and void as per the provisions of the 75, 76, 80 and 81 of A.P. Endowments Act and also all such type of sale transactions are not binding on the respondent Devasthanam. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any right over the land on the basis of sale deeds obtained by them without any manner of right or title over the property. Hence, learned counsel prays to dismiss all the writ petitions as there are no grounds. 8. Perused the material on record. 9. On a perusal of the material on record, it is observed that, the land in Sy.No.24/3D2 situated at Chimalapally Village, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam District is absolutely private land it is clearly mentioned as “Zeroyati” dry land is private land not Inam land. It is the contention of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent has no right to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the residential plots of the petitioners without due process of law. 10. As seen from the proceedings of Land Reforms Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, which was filed by the respondents, wherein it is observed that, “The land Reforms Tribunal, therefore hereby orders u/s 12(1) of the Act that an extent of Ac 17.68 Dry land in S.No.24/3 D2 of Chimalapalli village of Visakhapatnam Taluk stands reverted to the owner i.e., Simhachalam Devasthanam, Simhachalam. 11. But as seen from the material on record, it is observed that, the survey and settlement Register of the village of Chimalapally in Pedaguddi Tahna, Vizianagaram Samsthanam shows that the land in Sy.No.24 of Chimalapally village is Jirayiti. 11. But as seen from the material on record, it is observed that, the survey and settlement Register of the village of Chimalapally in Pedaguddi Tahna, Vizianagaram Samsthanam shows that the land in Sy.No.24 of Chimalapally village is Jirayiti. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition while declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment residential properties of the petitioners situated in Sy.No.24/3D2 at Cheemalapply village, Pendurty Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal and arbitrary. 12. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of. The 2nd respondent is directed not to interfere with the petitioners subject property. If at all, there are any disputes with regard to subject property, the respondent authorities shall follow due process of law by duly issuing a notice to the petitioners as contemplated under law. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.