Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1043 (AP)

Talari Venu, S/o. Ganesh (Late) v. State of AP

2025-08-29

HARINATH N.

body2025
ORDER : HARINATH.N, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not taking any steps or action in pursuance to the representation dated 05.05.2025 submitted by the petitioner seeking prevention of the illegal layout which, according to the petitioner, is proposed over land admeasuring Ac.12.60 cents and Ac.8.93 cents in Survey Nos.507 and 508 of Kattamnchi Revenue Village of Chittoor Mandal. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the possessor of the land, having acquired the same by inheritance. It is also stated in the pleadings that the petitioner’s mother was assigned the said land and was in possession and enjoyment thereof. Further, it is stated that after the demise of the petitioner’s mother, the petitioner succeeded as the legal heir of the said property. The petitioner claims that the 12 th respondent has illegally taken possession of the property and has obtained a layout which, according to the petitioner, is unauthorized. In this regard, the petitioner made a representation on 05.05.2025 requesting the authorities to prevent the 12 th respondent from making any layout over the property claimed by the petitioner. - 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the name of the petitioner’s mother was recorded in the revenue records as possessor and enjoyer of the land. It is also stated that the pattadar pass book was issued on the name of petitioner’s father. 4. The 12 th respondent filed a counter-affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioner. On the contrary, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 12 th respondent that, the 12 th respondent is the titleholder of the said property, having inherited the same by virtue of a will deed dated 11.09.1991. It is also submitted that land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 2010-11, and an award dated 26.09.2011 was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Chittoor, cum Land Acquisition Officer, reference to the portion of the land acquired by the competent authorities, as stated at Serial Nos.76 and 77 of the award, belongs to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the 12 th respondent was awarded compensation, and a portion of compensation was awarded to Smt. P. Visalakshamma, from whom the property was inherited by the 12 th respondent. It is further submitted that the 12 th respondent was awarded compensation, and a portion of compensation was awarded to Smt. P. Visalakshamma, from whom the property was inherited by the 12 th respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner is a stranger to the property. Further documents were also filed by the 12 th respondent, whereby it is submitted that the documents relied upon by the petitioner were sent to a forensic expert, and the examination report indicates that the documents relied upon by the petitioner were forged. The learned counsel for the 12 th respondent further submits the similarly placed person had been interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the 12 th respondent, and as such, O.S.No.29 of 2022 was filed on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chittoor, which was decreed on 27.02.2023, restraining the respondents therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The suit schedule property is the same property over which the petitioner is now attempting to lay a claim. - 5. The respondent No.9 has also filed counter-affidavit, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.9 submits that the name of the petitioner does not find mention in the revenue records, and that even in the 1B register, the name of the petitioner is not recorded. It is also stated in the counter that the petitioner has failed to produce any documents to sustain his claim over the title to the property. It is further stated that the Municipal Corporation and Registration authorities are the competent authorities to grant approvals for construction and to sanction layouts. 6. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent also submits in counter-affidavit that the petitioner’s name does not appear in the revenue records, whereas the name of the 12 th respondent is reflected in the latest Pattadar Adangal. It is also submitted that layout approval was granted on 31.05.2025, for land in Survey Nos.507 and 508, and that the respondent No.12 has submitted all the requisite documents as mandated under the applicable rules. As such, the proceedings have been issued in accordance with the prevailing layout regulations. - 7. The respondent No.11 has also filed a counter, duly stating that the grievance of the petitioner would have to be addressed by the other respondents. As such, the proceedings have been issued in accordance with the prevailing layout regulations. - 7. The respondent No.11 has also filed a counter, duly stating that the grievance of the petitioner would have to be addressed by the other respondents. Insofar as respondent No.11 is concerned, the respondent is only duty-bound to act as and when documents are presented for registration. Insofar as adjudication of title is concerned, respondent No.11 is not the competent authority. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.12, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.11 and 9, and learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. 9. With regard to the grievance of the petitioner concerning non-disposal or non-consideration of his representation made to respondent Nos.2 to 11, the petitioner must prima facie establish his claim over the property before seeking any relief on account of any consideration of his representation. Any representation, bereft of supporting documents cannot be considered for disposal on merits by any authority. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to submit relevant documents before seeking a direction from this Court for considering of his representation. Grant of a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representation and dispose off the same on merits would be futile when the petitioner fails to submit relevant documents for the respondent authorities to consider. On the facts of this case, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, it is evident that respondent No.12 was awarded compensation when the land was acquired by the competent authority. This indicate that the 12 th respondent was in possession and enjoyment of the property as on the date of acquisition. The revenue records also reflect the possession and enjoyment of the respondent No.12. - 10. Considering the nature of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.12, it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent civil court for redressal of his grievance, if any, against the respondents. 11. With these observations, the present writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.