Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 733 (AP)

M. s. Phani Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-06-19

T.C.D.SEKHAR

body2025
The Court made the following order: T.C.D.SEKHAR, J. The petitioner claims that, he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in Block II & III of Zamendari Estate existed in Gutala Village, Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari. It is further case of the petitioner that, his grandmother late Smt. Manyam Meenakshamma filed a writ petition vide WP No.88 of 1951 claiming ownership as against land in Block I of the said village. Upon contest, the said writ petition was dismissed and the same was assailed unsuccessfully by her in writ appeal vide WA No.53 of 1955. 2. It is further case of the petitioner that, when the respondents tried to interfere with the possession of his grandmother over an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in Block II & III of the said village, she filed suit in OS No.298 of 2002, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, seeking permanent injunction against the respondents herein. After hearing the parties, the trial court by judgment and decree dated 12.03.2003, decreed the said suit and it attained finality. It is further case of the petitioner that, during the lifetime of his grandmother late m Smt. Manyam Meenakshamma, executed a registered will dated 19.05.1972 in favour of the petitioner’s father, whereby and whereunder bequeathed an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in Block II & III of the said village in his favour. Later, the petitioner’s father executed a registered will dated 25.03.2011, bequeathing all the properties held by him in favour of the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that, taking advantage of his absence in the village, the respondents tried to take possession of the subject land so as to distribute house site pattas to the eligible beneficiaries under Navaratnalu Pedalandariki lllu Scheme. It is specific case of the petitioner that, the respondents without initiating proceedings under Act 30 of 2013 and without payment of compensation, tried to interfere with his possession. Questioning the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. 3. On the other hand, the 4th respondent filed counter affidavit stating that, except filing unregistered will dated 25.03.2011, the petitioner did not file any other documents in support of his claim. Questioning the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. 3. On the other hand, the 4th respondent filed counter affidavit stating that, except filing unregistered will dated 25.03.2011, the petitioner did not file any other documents in support of his claim. It is further stated that, the subject land is recorded as village site in the revenue records and out of total extent of Ac.0.85 cents claimed by the petitioner, the respondents have issued house site pattas in an extent of Ac.0.44 cents to 22 beneficiaries admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents each and the remaining extent of Ac.0.41 cents are concerned, it is peg marked and the same is ready for distribution of house site pattas to the weaker section. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that, neither the name of late Sri Raja Manyam Kanakayya Zamindar i.e., the father of the petitioner, nor the petitioner’s name was mutated in the revenue records. With the above pleadings, the 4th respondent states that, the question of initiating land acquisition proceedings does not arise, inasmuch as the petitioner did not file any documents in support of his claim and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 5. Perused the material available on record. . 6. The claim of the petitioner over the land in dispute is based on unregistered will deed dated 25.03.2011, said to have been executed by his father. Though it is stated by the petitioner that his name is mutated in revenue records, nothing is placed on record to show that his name is actually mutated. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that, his grandmother filed a suit in OS No.298 of 2002, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, against the respondents herein and upon contest the same was decreed by judgment and decree dated 12.03.2003. It is pertinent to note that, the said suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against the subject land. On the other hand it is the case of the 4th respondent that, the subject land is recorded as village site in the revenue records and accordingly an extent of Ac.0.44 cents was taken over and distributed house site pattas to 22 beneficiaries way back in the year 2002. On the other hand it is the case of the 4th respondent that, the subject land is recorded as village site in the revenue records and accordingly an extent of Ac.0.44 cents was taken over and distributed house site pattas to 22 beneficiaries way back in the year 2002. Suffice it to say, after filing the counter affidavit, the petitioner filed interlocutory application vide IA No.1 of 2025, seeking to amend the prayer in the writ petition as follows: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT of MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the Respondents in assigning the land in an extent of Ac.0.44 cents out of Ac.0.85 cents of land situated in Kondru vari veedhi, Gutala Village, Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, extent of Ac. 0.44 cents out of ac.0.85 cents as house site pattas to 22 persons at Ac.0.02 cents each in the year 2012 itself is illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law and violative of our constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 21, 31 and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to hand over the vacant possession of land In Issue of Ac.0.44 cents by evicting the assignees or in the alternative pay the compensation to the said extent of land Ac.0.44 cents by compulsory acquiring the land under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and also further direct the Respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s remaining land in an extent of Ac.0.41 cents out of Ac.0.85 cents of land situated in Kondru varl Veedhi, Gutala Village, Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the Interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper In the Interest of Justice.” 7. The said application was allowed by order dated 19.03.2025. From the above it is clear that, the petitioner is not in possession of Ac.0.44 cents out of the total extent of Ac.0.85 cents, inasmuch as, he sought to handover the vacant possession of land to an extent of Ac.0.44 cents by evicting the assignees/beneficiaries. The said application was allowed by order dated 19.03.2025. From the above it is clear that, the petitioner is not in possession of Ac.0.44 cents out of the total extent of Ac.0.85 cents, inasmuch as, he sought to handover the vacant possession of land to an extent of Ac.0.44 cents by evicting the assignees/beneficiaries. Insofar as the remaining extent of Ac.41 cents are concerned, though it is stated that the petitioner is in possession, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the same. In the absence of any material to show their possession. this Court is not inclined to decide as to who is in possession of the remaining extent of land. Nevertheless, the petitioner claims\possession over remaining extent of Ac.0.41 cents by virtue of decree passed in OS No.298 of 2002, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur. 8. It is pertinent to note that, this Court while ordering notice by order dated 17.03.2020, directed the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over an extent of Ac.0.85 cents situated in Kondruvari Veedhi, Gutala Village, Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, until further orders. The said order is subsisting as on today. Though, initially the interim order was passed to the total extent of Ac.0.85 cents by virtue of amendment made to the prayer, it is clear that, the same is operating as against an extent of Ac.0.41 cents. 9. Having considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel and taking into consideration of the interim order passed by this Court at the stage of admission, it is appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition directing the respondents to take appropriate action over the remaining land in dispute i.e., an extent of Ac.0.41 cents in accordance with law. It is made clear that, the interim order granted by this Court on 17.03.2020 shall remain in force to an extent of Ac.0.41 cents alone. 10. Further, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse under law to claim right over an extent of Ac.0.44 cents. 11. With the above directions, the present writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.