Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kota Tripara Sundari W/O Rama Krishna ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NOS: 18454. 18455 AND 18456 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION NO: 18454 OF 2011
Between:
1. Kota Tripara Sundari W/o Rama Krishna Rao (died) per LR - 2
Agriculture R/o Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam.
2. Smt.N.Padmalatha, W/o. N.V.S.V.Ramakrishna Rao, SF-1, Sowbhagya
Residency, 50/52/6, North Extension, Seethammadhara,
Visakhapatnam,-13,
Petitioner No.2 is brought on Record as LR of Deceased 1 of Petitioner
as per C.O.dt.2/2/2022 in IA.No.4/2018.
...Petitioners
AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary
(Revenue) Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
3. Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam.
4. Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam.
5. Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the pireumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue a Writ or order, more particularly one in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus or
any other Writ declaring that the order of the 2nd
respondent passed in Rc. No. 5065/2007/F2 dated 12-10-2010 arbitrary
baseless, and illegal and
consequently set aside the same besides directing
the 2nd Respondent to re conduct the enquiry after getting the relevant
revenue records from the Director of Survey and Settlements, Hyderabad for
the purpose of giving "No Objection Certificate to delete the lands in an
extent of Ac. 2.87 cts
in S.No. 369/2 of Madhurawada Village
Visakhapatnam from the list of "Assigned Lands".
[■A. NO: 1 OF 2011fWPMP. NO: 22255 OF 20111
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to suspend the Order of the 2nd Respondent passed in
Rc.No.5065/2007/F2 dated 12.10.2010.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. S RAJAN
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE
WRIT PETITION NO: 18455 OF 2011
Between:
1. Pongupati Venkata Saraswathi, W/o Appalanaidu, (died per LR)
Agriculture R/o Mandhurawada, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam.
2. Smt.N.Padmalatha, W/o. N.V.S.V.Ramakrishna Rao SF-1, Sowbhagya
Residency 50/52/6, North Extension, Seethammadhara,
Visakhapatnam,-13.
Petitioner No. 2 is brought on Record as LR of Deceased Petitioner No
1 as per court order dt. 04/02/2022 in lA No. 1/18
...Petitioners
AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary (Revenue)
Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
3. Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam.
4. Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam.
5. Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court m^''
be pleased to issue a writ or order, more particularly, one in the nature of a
Writ of Mandamus or any other writ declaring that declaring that the Order of
the 2nd Respondent passed in Rc.No.5065/2007/F2 dated 12.10.2010 is
arbitrary, baseless and illegal and consequently set aside the same besides
directing the 2nd Respondent to reconduct the enquiry after getting the
relevant revenue records from the Director of Survey and Settlements,
Hyderabad for the purpose of giving "No Objection Certificate" to delete the
lands in an extent of Ac.4.00 cts in S.No.369/1 of Madhurawada Village,
Visakhapatnam from the list of "Assigned Lands".
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 22256 OF 2011)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to suspend the Order of the 2nd Respondent passed in
Rc.No.5065/2007/F2 dated 12.10.2010.
Counsel for the Petitioners; SRI. S RAJAN
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE
WRIT PETITION NO: 18456 OF 2011
Between:
1. Tammiraju Krishnamma died per LR - 2, S/o. late Simhachalam
Agriculture R/o. Madhuawada, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam
2. N.V.S.V.Ramakrishna Rao, S/o.Late Ranga Rao, SF-1,Sowbhagya
Residency,50/52/6, North Extension, Seethammadhara,Visakhapatnam
-13,
Petitioner No.2 is brought on record as per LR of deceased 1 of
petitioner as per C.O.dt.04/02/2022 in IA.No.1/2021.
...Petitioners
AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
Secretaraiat, Hyderabad
2. District Collector, Visakhapatnam
3. Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam
4. Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam
5. Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue a writ or order, more particularly one in the nature of writ
of mandamus or any other writ declaring that the Order of the 2nd
Respondent passed in Rc.No.5065/2007/F2 dt. 12.10.2010 is arbitrary,
baseless and illegal and consequently set aside the same besides directing
the 2nd Respondent to re-conduct the enquiry after getting the relevant
revenue records from the Director of Survey and Settlements, Hyderabad for
the purpose of giving "No Objection Certificate" to delete the lands in an
extent of Ac. 3.07 cts in S.No. 368/2 of Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam form
the list of "Assigned Lands".
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 22257 OF 20111
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased suspend the Order of the 2nd Respondent passed in RC.No.
5065/2007/F2 dt. 12.10.2010.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. S RAJAN
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following Common Order:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION Nos. 18454. 18455 & 18456 of 2011
COMMON ORDER:
Heard the submissions of Sri S. Rajan, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners (in all the Writ Petitions) and Sri Y. Subba Rao, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
2. The three Writ Petitions relates to the same set of facts, only the Survey Numbers and extent of land owned by each of the Writ Petitioners in these three Writ Petitions would vary.
3. For the sake of brevity, the facts as stated in W.P.No. 18454 of 2011 are referred as follows 3.1. The Writ Petitioners are the lawful owners of the land in Sy.No.369/2 of an extent of Ac.2-87 cents of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam. These lands are originally a part of Sy.No.330 during the survey settlement operations that were carried out after the abolition of the Estates. During this time, these survey numbers were further sub divided into Sy.No.330/A and 330/B. 3.2.
That during the settlement operations, the Writ Petitioners were given Patta for the subject lands covered under Sy.No.330/B-4, which is reflected from Ex.P.1, which is Rough Patta. In this Rough Patta (Ex.P.1), old survey numbers are indicated in Column No.2.
Whereas, in Column No.1, newly 2 assigned survey number namely 330/B-4 is indicated for the extent of land of Ac.2.87 cents. Similar rough pattas are also indicated for the Writ Petitioners in other Writ Petitions. 10-1 Adangal also carries similar details indicating Sy.No.369/2 for an extent of Ac.2-87 cents, which is marked as Ex.P.2. True extract of Settlement Faisalaithi Register of Madhurawada Village (also known as Manuscript Diglot Register (MDR)) would reflect the survey numbers along with the extent. The issuance of Settlement Register in favour of Writ Petitioners is also noted. The Writ Petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands since the grant of Pattas. 3.3. When the Writ Petitioners approached the bub Kegistrar, Madhurawada Village during the year 2007 for obtaining the Market value Certificate for the payment of vacant land tax, they were informed that the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural (Respondent No.5) had notified the subject lands as Assigned Lands under Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The Writ Petitioners, having been surprised about such notification, have approached the Respondent No.5 (Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam) and submitted a Representation dated 24.03.2007 (Ex.P.4) along with the documents and related facts with a request to delete the subject lands from the Assignment Register. A copy was also marked to Respondent No.2 namely the District Collector. Due to inaction on part of Respondent No. 5 to the Representation dated 24.03.2007, Writ Petitioners were constrained to file W.P.Nos.13718, 13719 and 13700 of 2007. These Writ Petitions were disposed of by Common Order dated 05.09.2007 (Ex.P.5), directing Respondent No.5 to consider and dispose of the Representation dated 24.03.2007 in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity to the Writ Petitioners, The Writ Petitioners were given liberty to file all relevant documents in support of their claims. The Respondent No.5, in compliance with the Order of the High Court, commenced the enquiry. Writ Petitioners appeared before the Respondent No.5 and filed about 15 Revenue Records.
3.4. Without appreciating the facts. Respondent No.5 erroneously passed an Order dated 13.02.2008 under Proceeding Rc.No.338/04/A (Ex.P.6) to the effect that the subject lands are Assigned Lands. The findings were given by Special Grade Deputy Collector after conducting enquiry about genuineness of MDR that was filed by the Writ Petitioners. The Report of the Special Grade Deputy Collector is to the effect that the MDR and Gillman Record of Madhurawada Village were tampered; and therefore, the validity of the said records are null and void.
3.5. The Writ Petitioners herein have filed W.P.M.P.Nos.4241 & 4242 of 2008 in W.P.No.3244 of 2008, wherein, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an Order of status quo (Ex.P.7) on 18.02.2008. During the pendency of these Writ Petitions, Writ Petitioners who had knowledge that the Revenue Records were digitally scanned at the office of the Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, Visakhapatnam, had obtained the scanned image of MDR of Madhurawada Village by way of a Compact Disc under the Right to Information Act. These scanned images of MDR have become very relevant 4 in view of the finding given by Respondent No.5 to the effect that MDR and Gillman Record of Madhurawada Village were tampered. 3.6. Respondent No.4 (Revenue Divisional Officer) also issued Notice bearing Rc.No.5619/08/A/dt.30.11.2008 directing the Writ Petitioners to appear before him on 15.12.2008 with all the records. This direction was complied with, and the Writ Petitioners appeared before the Respondent No.4. Despite this exercise, since the Authorities have not decided the issues, the Writ Petitioners were constrained to file W.P.Nos.2508, 2507, 2506 of 2009 before this Hon'bie Court with a prayer to expedite the enquiry. This Hon'ble Court directed the Respondents to expedite the enquiry. 3.7. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, after consulting with the District Collectors, issued Memo No.G1/15653/06 dated 05.05.2009 to the effect that the Revenue Divisional Officers are competent under Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules to issue NOC (Ex.P.10), As per this communication. Respondent No.4 who had conducted enquiry in the case of Writ Petitioners is the competent authority to decide the case of Writ Petitioners for deletion of their lands from the list of Assigned Lands and consequently informed the Registration Department to delete the lands of the Writ Petitioners from the prohibited list.
3.8. It is further submitted in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, that though the Respondent No.4 concluded that the subject lands are Ryotwari lands, he failed to take an independent decision about deletion of subject lands from the list of Assigned Lands. He had however sent a communication vide Rc.No.5619/2008/A dated 05.09.2009 to the Respondent No.2 (the District Collector) for information (Ex.P.11) Relevant portion is extracted hereunder from the Proceedings of the Respondent No.4 (Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam) bearing Rc.No.5619/2008/A/ dt.05.09.2009 addressed to the Respondent No.2 (the District Collector, Visakhapatnam:
7 further submit that as seen from the Settlement Order of Madhurawada Village, which was filed by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) in the reference cited (copies enclosed) it clearly proves that the claim of the Petitioners were allowed and confirmed by then Add!. Asst Settlement Officer, Vizianagaram Vide SR-15-2471, 2472, 2473 and 2474/ VSR on 30.04.1957. As could be seen from the Settlement Pattas, it clearly shows that the land in question is Zeroyathi and their claim over the said lands was settled long back. As seen from the SF-7 (List of all un occupied Banjar and Poramboke) the S. No.330A with an extent of Ac.161.52 cts was only noted as Govt Land''.
3.9.
As there was no action on part of the Respondents, the Writ Petitioners herein were constrained to file W.P.Nos.20929, 20930, 20949 of 2009. This Hon'ble Court passed an Interim Order in the W.P.M.P.No.27239 of 2009 in W.P.No.20930 of 2009 on 25.09.2009 (Ex.P.12) directing Respondent No.4 (Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam) to conduct independent enquiry. 3.10. Since the Respondent No.4 did not comply with the interim direction, the Writ Petitioners were constrained to file Contempt Cases bearing C.C.Nos.185, 189 and 183 of 2010.
3.11. During the pendency of Contempt Cases, the Respondent No.4 has passed an Order dated 07.04.2010 bearing Proceeding Rc.No.5619/2008/A (Ex.P.13) by holding that the subject lands are not "Zeroyti" lands but the Government Lands. This Order was also filed along with Counter Affidavit in W.P.No.20929, 20930 and 20949 of 2009, which are still pending. Contempt Cases were disposed of by Common Order in C.C.No.183, 185, 189 and 190 of 2010 dated 03.08.2010, wherein the Respondent No.2 was directed to pass an appropriate order on the Report submitted by the Respondent No.4. In pursuance of the said Order dated 03.08.2010, Respondent No.2 passed an Order bearing Proceeding Rc.No.5065/2007/F2 dated 12.10.2010 {Ex.P.15) (impugned herein). It can be seen from this Order dated 12.10.2010, that the Respondent No.2 has mechanically recorded his doubt about every document filed before him. Respondent No.2 has gone to the extent of rejecting the Official Proceedings and Letters under the guise that either they were not available or they were fabricated without rendering any explanation. 3.12. The Writ Petitioners have filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 in all the Writ Petitions, which are presently pending before this Court for the purpose of placing documents on record. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has contended that the Respondents were merely stating that the MDR and Gillman Register were tampered, whereas this contention gets belied from the material produced by the Writ Petitioners. The Writ Petitioners have filed an Order dated 17.07.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in 7 W.P.Nos.6829. 6826 and 6827 of 2007 (filed along with I.A.No.1 of 2022), wherein, this Hon'ble Court held;
It is the case of the petitioner that she was in possession of the subject land by virtue of settlement patta granted to her in Survey NO.330/B-3, which was classified as Zeroythi lands. But, however, subsequently, revision survey was conducted and Survey No. 330 was renumbered and on the request of the petitioner for grant of patta with the new survey number incorporated therein, the petitioner, by mistake, was issued with a D-Form patta instead of settlement patta. Further, when the possession and enjoyment of the subject land by the petitioner was interfered with on the condition of violation of conditions of patta, petitioner and four others earlier filed Writ Petition No. 5510 of 2004, wherein, orders of status quo were passed by this Flonourable Court. In the said writ petition counter-affidavit was filed stating that the very issuance of an assignment patta under the scheme meant for landless poor was a mistake and the said assignment was cancelled and the subject land was handed over to Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, which had subsequently restored the land to the petitioner based on the settlement patta. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of the same, there is interference by the first respondent. Though no counter affidavit is filed, but the learned Standing Counsel for the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority submits that earlier possession was handed over by the Government to it. But, however, subsequently, after settlement records were verified, the possession was taken back by the Government and the same was restored to the petitioner and she is in possession of the land In question. It is further submitted that there is no interference by the first respondent. As much as now it is stated that the land which was taken possession earlier was already taken back by the Mandal Revenue Officer from Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority and the same was in turn handed over to the petitioner, and, as her entitlement to Its possession is not In dispute, I dispose of the writ petition placing the submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent on record that there is no interference with the land of the petitioner in an extent of Ac. 4.00 cents situated In Survey No. 369/1 of Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs". 3.13. It is pertinent to state that the Order dated 17.07.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6827 of 2007 and other connected Orders 8 have became final. The Writ Petitioners have also placed on record (along with I.A.No.1 of 2022) the communication from the District Collector, dated 20.08.2007 to the Tahsildar of Visakhapatnam (Rural) and to the Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam, to go through the Order dated 17.07.2007 of this Court (Passed in W.P.No.6829 of 2007) and take necessary action as per the High Court directions and report compliance.
3.14. It is further pertinent to mention that in W.P.No.5048 of 2012, the Respondent No.5 namely Tahsildar filed Counter Affidavit dated 05.06.2012 (filed along with i.A.No.1 of 2022), wherein it has been categorically stated in Para Nos.5, 6 & 9, which reads:
"5) I submit that as per the instructions of the Respondent the then 3^ Respondent, who is the custodian of the Settlement records has thoroughly enquired in to the matter and reported that land belongs to Pongupati Venkata Saraswathi in S.No.369/1 measuring Ac. 4.00 cts were not tampered and it is not disturbed in the scanned C.D. and original M.D.R ., and the entries are intact in both the scanned CD and M.D.R. Moreover, the said name. Survey Number and extent were also recorded In new survey numbers in S.NO.380B. It appears that the S.No. 369/1 is carved out from S.NO.330B.
6) I submit that in pursuance of the instructions of the 2"^ Respondent, the 4'^ Respondent has submitted his detailed reports to the Respondent in Rc. No. 5619/2008/A on 05.09.2009, 26.10.2009, 20.01.2010 and 24.02.2010 after receiving explanations from the petitioner, settlement proceedings from the Tahsildar and Settlement Fair Adangal of Madhurawada village from the 2""^ Respondent is observed that, on perusal of the report submitted by the Spl. Gr. Dy.
Collector, land protection reveals that It suffers from certain infirmities as the entire record basing on the subject matter appears to have not been examined and confirmed that tampering for the subject survey number could not be established and found to be correct and finally opinloned that the lands in question are in peaceful possession and 9 enjoyment of the Petitioner and there is no other got except to rely on the facts born on record.
Paras 7 and 8 xxxxxx
9) I submit that the Commissioner & Director of Settlements, Hyderabad has sent a reply to the 2""^ Respondent vide Rc.No.A1/391/2011 dated 30.8.2011 enclosing the scanned copy of the Settlement Fair Adangal maintained in his office, as seen from that record-the land in question is classified as Ryotwari Dry land. I submit that as seen from the public copy obtained from the Respondent is only a communication to him by the then Mandal Revenue Officer but the same land was notified under G.O.M.S.No.583 dated May 2005 hence the copy obtained from the 6'^ Respondent is null and void but the Hon'ble High Court has struck down the Sec-22A of the Amended Registration Act".
SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONERS:
4. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the Writ Petitioners herein have submitted an Application on 14.11.2008 to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam under the Right to Information Act seeking for issuance of a 'Note' in C.No.5065/2002 F2. In response to the same, the District Collector has furnished a 'Note' giving all the particulars along with a covering Letter dated 06.12.2008 (Ex.P.8). A perusal of the 'Note' furnished by the District Collector (Ex.P.8 at page 45 of the W.P.18454 of 2011) would clearly state there was tampering of entries in the MDR and therefore, the same (MDR) was sent to the Asst. Director, Survey and Land Records, Visakhapatnam for scanning on 20.11.2007 and the same was returned on 20.12.2007 on instructions of the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam during the time of inspection of settlement records at Asst. Director's Office. The said record was kept with the Asst. Director, S& LR, Visakhapatnam for one month for scanning. Immediately on receipt of MDR Register, the Special Grade 10 Deputy Collector (LP) Visakhapatnam has conducted an Enquiry on the entries made in MDR and found that there was tampering in respect of certain entries. Thereafter, the District Collector's Office has received copy of the scanned CD from the Asst. Director, Survey and Land Records. The entries made in the scanned records were also verified and compared with the MDR Register. The Report would also indicate that on verification of the scanned CD with reference to the MDR, Madhuravada, the land record (MDR) pertaining to the names of the Petitioners i.e., (1) Tammiraju Krishhamma- survey No.368/2 measuring an extent of Ac.3.07 cents; (2) Lingam Somasundara Rao - survey No.368/3 measuring an extent of Ac.3.60 cents; (3) PodugupatiVenkataSaraswathi- Survey No.369/1 measuring an extent of Ac.4.00 cents; and (4) Kota Tripura Sundari - survey No.369/2 measuring Ac.2.87 cents were not tampered and they are not disturbed in the CD and the entries are intact in both the scanned CD as well as the MDR. It is also stated that the said names, survey numbers and extents were also recorded in new Survey No. 330/B. The Collector, while giving such a Report under the RTI, had clearly indicated that the decision may be taken after the disposal of the pending W.P.Nos. 3242, 3243, 3244 and 3245 of 2008 since the Petitioners have challenged the Orders of the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural and the possession of the said lands were already handed over VUDA, Visakhapatnam and also the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.M.P has granted an interim stay suspending the Orders of the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam. It is also stated that insofar as the persons whose names are recorded are stated to 11 r have been tampered (who are not the Writ Petitioners herein) in the remarks column, the suitable steps were to be taken for launching criminal cases against such persons for finding out the truth.
5. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the Proceedings of the RDO, Visakhapatnam dated 05.09.2009 , addressed to the District Collector. Visakhapatnam (Ex.P.11). This document also clearly states that the Report submitted by the Special Grade Deputy Collector, Land Protection suffers from certain infirmities as the entire record relating to the subject matter appears to have not been examined, It is stated that the permanent settlement records were computerized under the supervision of Asst. Director, Survey and Land Records prior to this litigation. The orders of the Tashildar dated 13.02.2008 were passed solely relying on the Report of the Special Grade Deputy Collector, Land Protection only. The Revenue Divisional Officer in his Letter addressed to the District Collector dated 05.09.2009 (Ex.P.11) has clearly stated that the Tahsildar blindly relied on the report of the Special Grade Deputy Collector, Land protection without looking into the previous record to the effect that the MRO (Rural) has issued proceedings way back on 27.10.1990 itself declaring that the subject lands Were classified as 'Zeroyathi dry' and not government lands. It is stated by the RDO that in response to the proceedings of the MRO (Rural) dated ^7.10.1990, the consequent incorporation of changes have not been carried ^ut. With regard to the page Nos. 525, 561, 563, 564, 565 and 566 of the the Revenue Divisional Officer has clearly stated that the remarks 12 rendered by the Tahsildar are wholly incorrect. It has also been stated that the Special Grade Deputy Collector did not actually verify the records in proper manner and therefore, came to a false conclusion that the subject survey numbers were tampered. It is also stated that the Tahsildar has not verified the scanned record of MDR of Madhuravada which was scanned under the supervision of the Asst. Director of Survey and Land Records, Visakhapatnam before the tampering occurred and also the connected records before passing the Final Order. The relevant portion of the Proceedings of the RDO, Visakhapatnam addressed to the District Collector^ Visakhapatnam dated 05.09.2009 (Ex.P,11) l.s usefully extracted herein.
"As seen from counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural filed in W.P.No.5510/2004 i.e., prior to the report of the Spl. Gr. Dy. Collector is admitted that the lands in question are Ryotwari-Dry lands and assignments were granted erroneously to their Patta lands, after allotting new survey numbers instead of the giving the same and admitted that the mistake was rectified after verifying the settlement records and restored the lands to the petitioners to enjoy their legal rights. He filed the attested copies of the M.D.R., V.A.No.10 (1) and proceedings and certificate in D.Dis.No.618/90/HA dated 03.11.90 to proof of his contention before the Hon'ble High Court.
In view of the state of things on grounds and also In view of the admissions made by VUDA through their counsel before Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No. 6826, 6827, 6828 and 6829/2007 stating that the lands In question were restored to the Petitioners as the alienation is confined to Govt.land.
The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural has submitted a detailed report in 3^^ reference cited and he categorically admitted that as per the Revenue and Settlement records available In his office, the lands In question are classified as ZeroyathI Lands and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and he further reported that as seen from the Disposal file Vide D.Dis.No. 618/90/HA dated 03.11.90 available in his office, it is noticed that, the 13 then Mandat Revenue Ofifcer, Visakhapatnam Rural had conducted detailed enquiry after issuing notices to the-^ petitioners and obtained written explanation from the petitioners and the direction along with settlement records from the District Collector vide R.C.No.5118/90/D2 dated 4-10-90 and issued proceedings for canceling the assignments of the Pattadar for the subject survey numbers are withdrawn from the assignment register and decide the classification as Ryotwari-Dry and certificate also issued vide D.Dis. No. 618/90/HA dated 03.11.90.
I further submit that in reply to the representation of Srnt. Kota Tripura Sundari under RTI Act, 2005, the District Collector has been pleased to issue an endorsement to her that the file In D.Dis.No.5118/90/D2 dated 04.10.90 was destroyed vide pdi NO.215/ANLY/2007/A8 Dt.11.03.2006 due to expiry of the D. Disposal for a period of 10 years.
I further submit that as seen from the Settlement. Orders of Madhurawada Village, which was filed by the Tahslldar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) in the reference 6'^ cited (copies enclosed) it clearly proves that the claim of the Petitioners were allowed and confirmed by then Addl.Asst. Settlement Officer, Vizianagaram Vide SR-15-2471, 2472 2473 and 2474/ VSP oh 30.04.1957. As could be seen from the Settlement Pattas, it clearly shows that the land in question is Zeroyathi and their claim over the said lands was settled long back. As seen from the SF-7 (List of all un occupied Banjar and Poramboke) the S.No.330A with an extent of Ac. 161.52 cts ivas only noted as Govt Land. "
6. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Impugned Order dated 12.10.2010 and would submit that the District Collector has miserably failed in considering the true facts on record before passing the impugned Order dated 12.10.2010. He would also submit that the scanned Manuscript Diglot Register (MDR) clearly reveals that the land in Survey No.369/3 of Madhuravada stands classified as 'Zeroyathi dry'.
7. Similar contentions have also been made by Sri Rajan in respect of the other two Writ Petitions. He would also submit that the Report of the RDO, 14 Visakhapatnam states clearly that the Tahsildar of Visakhapatnam has taken a particular stand in W.P.No.5510of 2004 that the land in question is Ryotwari dry land and the assignments were granted erroneously after allotting new survey number instead of giving Patta with the new Survey number. It has also been admitted by the Tahsildar in Counter-Affidavit filed in W.P.No.5510 of 2004 that the mistake was rectified after verifying the settlement record and restore the lands to the petitioners herein. He would also submit that the RDO has taken note of the detailed Report submitted by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam dated 06.05.2009 bearing RC.No.265/2009/SA wherein, it has been categorically admitted that as per the Revenue and Settlement records available in his office, the lands are classified has 'Zeroyathi lands' and the said lands are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. It has also been recorded that the Proceedings were issued on 03.11.1990, inter alia cancelling the assignments that were issued erroneously earlier and further the subject survey number was withdrawn from the Assignment Register by deciding that the classification of lands as Ryotwari dry in nature and had issued certificate to that effect.
8. Sri Rajan, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would further submit that the Official Respondents have once again admitted before this Court in W.P. No.6829 of 2007 that the very issuance of assignment patta to the Writ Petitioners under the scheme for landless poor was a mistake and that the assignment was cancelled and the subject land was handed over to the VUDA which have subsequently been restored to the Petitioners based on the 15 Ssttlemsnt Patta. It is statad that the stand of the Respondents is reflected in the recording of the Order of this Court dated 17.07.2007 in W.P.No.6829 of 2007. This Order in W.P.No.6829 of 2007 dated 17.07.2007 is filed by the Writ Petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2022. The relevant portion of the Order is usefully extracted hereunder:
"In the said writ petition counter-affidavit was filed stating that the very issuance of an assignment patta under the scheme meant for landless poor was a mistake and the said assignment was cancelled and the subject land was handed over to Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, which had subsequently restored the land to the petitioner based on the settlement patta. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of the same, there is interference by the first respondent.
Though no counter affidavit is filed, but the learned Standing Counsel for the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority submits that earlier possession was handed over by the Government to it. But, however, subsequently, after settlement records were verified, the possession was taken back by the Government and the same was restored to the petitioner and she is in possession of the land in question. It is further submitted that there is no interference by the first respondent.
As much as now it is stated that the land which was taken possession earlier was already taken back by the Mandal Revenue Officer from Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority and the same was in turn handed over to the petitioner, and, as her entitlement to Its possession is not in dispute, I dispose of the writ petition placing the submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent on record that there is no interference with the land of the petitioner in an extent of Ac.2.87 cents situated in Survey No.369/2 of Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam. "
9. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has also taken this Court through the Proceeding of the District Collector dated 20.08.2007 (filed along with I.A.No.01 of 2022) directing the Tahsildar to take necessary steps in view of the Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 16 6829 of 2007 dated 17.07.2007. On the same date, the District Collector has also addressed a Letter to the Vice Chairman of Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA) to the same effect.
10. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the Order passed in W.P.No.6829 of 2007 dated 17.07.2007 has attained finality. Sri Rajan has also taken this Court through the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Tahsildar of Visakhapatnam dated 05.06.2012 in W.P.No.5089 of 2012. He has taken this Court through the Para Nos. 5, 6 and 9 of the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Tahsildar in W.P.No.5089 of 2012 (copy of this Counter-Affidavit is filed along with I.A.No.1 of 2022).
11. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has also taken this Court through the final Order passed by the Ld. Single Judge in W.P.No.5089 of 2012 and batch (this order in W.P.No.5089 of 2012 and batch dated 25.04.2013 is filed along with I.A.No.1 of 2022). The Ld. Single Judge of this Court in this Order has recorded that the Division Bench of this Court has struck down section 22- A of the Registration Act, 1908 in W.P.No.14099 of 2003. Accordingly G.O.Ms. No.583 dated 04.05.2005 notifying the subject lands under section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 has been struck down. SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
12. Sri Y. Subba Rao, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.18454 of 2011) dated 17 04.06.2012. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Official Respondents has taken this Court through the averments made in the Counter-Affidavit. He would submit that the impugned Order dated 12.10.2010 had been passed in accordance with law and urged this Court to dismiss these Writ Petitions on the basis that the Official Respondents have not committed any infirmity in passing the impugned Order. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Impugned Order and would submit that the District Collector had dealt with the issues before him in a threadbare manner. He would submit that as many as 24 documents which are filed by the Petitioners herein have been considered. The District Collector has discussed the effect of each and every document and rendered a finding that the documents relied on by the Petitioners are fabricated. He has also drawn the attention of this Court from Para No.9 onwards to state that the District Collector had dealt with every issue in a threadbare manner.
RE-JOINDER:
13.
Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, in his Re-joinder, has also placed reliance on the very same impugned Order and he would submit that the District Collector has had a myopic view on the issues. Despite the fact that the District Collector has listed out about the 24 documents which are placed on record by the Writ Petitioners, the nature of the document and purport of the said document has not been discussed by the District Collector in a detailed manner. He would submit that the District Collector has adopted a perfunctory approach' in dealing with the issue on hand. He would submit that 18 while the Petitioners have fought several legal battles earlier, the District Collector ought to have had regard for the same and ought to have dealt with the matters in a detailed manner and give a quietus to the controversial issues once and for all. He would submit that the impugned Order is bereft of any particular reasoning. He has drawn the attention of various Paragraphs in the Impugned Order, which are mostly one line and two lines sentences, He would submit that the District Collector, while rendering negative findings as regards the documents submitted by the Writ Petitioners, ought to have given proper reasoning as to why the documents: furnished by the Writ Petitioners cannot be considered. The impugned Order is completely silent about the various Proceedings which have taken place before this Court and also various pleadings of the Writ Petitioners and the Respondents, He would submit that the District Collector has not given due deference even to the Judicial orders which are passed by this Court and also which have attained finality.
14. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the District Collector, in the impugned Order, did not advert to the following aspects;
(i) The present District Collector who passed the impugned Order did not advert to the observations made by the then District Collector in his Report dated 06.12.2008 (Ex.P.8), which is in response to the RTI Applications submitted by the Writ Petitioners on 14.11.2008.
(ii) The District Collector, while passing the impugned Order, did not refer to the scanned CD that was made 19 available relating to the Manuscript Diglot Register (MDR).
(iii) The District Collector while passing the impugned Order did not take into account the effect of the Order passed by the Ld. single Judge of this Court dated 17.07.2007 in W.P.No.6829 of 2007.
(iv) The District Collector also did not advert to the two consequential Letters addressed by the District Collector, one to the Tahsildar and another to the Vice Chairman of Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority on 20.08.2007 to take necessary action in compliance with the order of this Court dated 17.07.2007 in W.P.Np.6829 of 2007.
(V) Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has also submitted that the District Collector while passing the Impugned Order did not take into account the pleadings made by the Official Respondents in other connected Writ Petitions, particularly in W.P.No.5089 of 2012. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to Para No.6 and 9 of the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Tahsildar of Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal dated 05.06.2012 in W.P.No.5089 of 2012 (filed along with the I.A.No.l of 2022 in this Writ Petition). The District Collector also did not advert to the final order passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.5089 of 2012 and batch dated 25.04.2013. By the said Order, the Ld. Single Judge had set aside the G.O.Ms.No.583 dated 04.05.2005 in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.14099 of 2003. It is submitted by the Ld. 20 Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the Division Bench Order has struck down Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.
(vi) The District Collector while passing the impugned Order, did not consider the content of the Proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam addressed to the District Collector, dated 05.09.2009 (Ex.P.11), wherein, the Revenue Divisional Officer had categorically stated that the findings rendered by the Spl. Grade Deputy Collector, Land Protection suffers from several infirmities as the entire record basing on the subject matter appears to have not been examined. The Revenue Divisional Officer had given several findings in the Proceeding dated 05.09.2009 (Ex.P.11) bearing Rc.No.5619/ 2008/A in this regard.
(vii) The Revenue Divisional Officer had clearly stated that on perusal of the scanned M.D.R, it is noticed that the land in Survey No.369/3 and 370 of Madhurawada stands classified as 'Zeroyithi dry'; and, therefore, remarks of the Tahilsdar in his Proceedings dated 31.02.2008 are not relevant.
(viii) The District Collector in the impugned order, did not advert to the fact that the Official Respondents have been blowing hot and cold inasmuch as the Official Respondents have placed reliance on the attested copies of the same M.D.R and relied on them in W.P.No.5510 of 2004. It is submitted that if the Official Respondents are of the view, that the M.D.R has been 21 tampered, the Official Respondents ought not to have placed reliance on the alleged tampered M.D.R in another Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.5510/2004. ANALYSIS:
15. This Court has considered the submissions made by the Writ Petitioners and the documents filed by the Writ Petitioners. This Court has also considered the Counter-Affidavit and the Impugned Order which has been passed by the District Collector, dated 12.10.2010 (Ex.P.15). The impugned Order would indicate that the District Collector has noted about 24 documents in the impugned Order. These documents, apparently have been filed by the Writ Petitioners. This Court has also perused the Proceedings of the RDO addressed to the District Collector dated 05.09.2009 bearing 5619/2008/A (Ex.P.11). This Court has also considered the Note of the District Collector furnished to the Writ Petitioners in response to the RTI Application dated 14.11.2008 (Ex.P.8). On a closer scrutiny of these two documents (Ex.P.8 and ExP.11) it appears that the RDO as well as the District Collector had clearly held that although certain portions of the original MDR stood tampered, the pages in which the property relating to the Writ Petitioners are concerned have not been tampered. This aspect of the matter.
has not been adverted to by the District Collector while passing the impugned Order. In the opinion of the Court, these documents are crucial in nature. which ought to have been considered by the District Collector and rendered his one way or the other.
22
16. The District Collector, in the impugned Order has referred to the Rough Pattas, which are in favour of the Writ Petitioners and also the D-Form pattas in favour of the Writ Petitioners and had jumped into the conclusion that since the Petitioners are possessing D-Form pattas, the claim made by the Writ Petitioners that the land belonging to them is a Ryotwari land is false, and consequently the claim of the Writ Petitioners was rejected. The District Collector has not rendered a finding with regard to the contention of the Writ Petitioners that the Official Respondents also have agreed that though the land belonging to the Writ Petitioners is a Ryotwari land, mistakenly at some stage D-.^orm Pattas came to be issued. The District Collector did I IW t consider another aspect in this matter, where, the Authorities have issued Proceedings directing the Tahsildar to rectify the Revenue Record by changing the nature of the land.
17. In fact, the impugned Order is replete with ambiguity and self contradictions. In respect of the substantial contentions raised by the Writ Petitioners, as mentioned in the Para 13 and 14 hereinabove, the District Collector had not answered any of the said contentions. On perusal of the impugned Order, this Court has come to the opinion that the findings rendered are not only perfunctory, but are also contrary to the record.
18. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Order is unsustainable in law inasmuch as the District Collector has passed 23 perfunctory order without addressing the real issues by referring to the evidence which is on record.
19. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions stand allowed. Consequently, the impugned Orders passed by the District Collector (in all these Writ Petitions) are set aside as being perfunctory and cryptic besides being replete with self contradictions and non-consideration of the relevant material.
20. Having regard to the long litigious history in these cases, this Court is inclined to issue the following directions:
(i) that having regard to the long litigious history, the District Collector is directed to reconsider these matters afresh in the light of the various documents relied on by the Writ Petitioners as well as the Official Respondents and pass detailed Speaking Orders within twenty (20) weeks from the date of uploading of this Order in the website of this Court in accordance with law, and communicate copy of such Orders to the Writ Petitioners forthwith.
(ii) The Writ Petitioners as well as the Official Respondents are granted liberty to place on record all the documents on which they intent to place reliance before the District Collector within a period of six (06) weeks from today.
(iii) Needless to state that the District Collector is statutorily obligated to adhere to the Principles of Natural Justice by granting reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the Writ Petitioners, through 24 counsel, if a request is made by the parties in this regard.
(iv) The Writ Petitioners (in all these Writ Petitions) are directed to submit a copy of the Order to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of uploading of this Order in the website of this Court for effective compliance of this common Order.
21. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
9
Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI
//TRUE COPY//
/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
SB OFFICER
To,
1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue, State of Andnra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Andhra Pradesh
2. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam
3. The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam
5. The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam
6. One CO to Sri. S Rajan Advocate [OPUC]
7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
8. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 P^ANDfiig r09 jur' X % a •a % ^ Cunenl Seclion . ^ ^«PATC«^ COMMON ORDER WP.Nos. 18454,18455 and 18456 of 2011 ALLOWING THE WPS WITHOUT COSTS