Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pullagura Guru Swami vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 16 March, 2020
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Writ Petition No.6084 of 2020
ORDER:
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, questioning the action of respondents in interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner over agricultural land in an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in Sy.No.376 situated at Immadi Cheruvu village, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, consequently direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in Sy.No.376 situated at Immadi Cheruvu village, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District.
2. The specific case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land in an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in Sy.No.376 situated at Immadi Cheruvu village, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District. Originally, on the request of petitioner, the then Tahsildar granted D-Form patta vide F.DIS/DK/16/1400 dated 20.08.1991. Since, the date of granting D-Form patta, petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. Further the petitioner is paying land revenue to the Revenue Department and raising seasonal crops like 'Toor Dal' and 'Jowar'. Recognizing the petitioner's possession, his name is mutated in adangal pahani, issued by 4th respondent.
3. While the matter stood thus, on 27.02.2020, respondents visited the subject land, when the petitioner enquired about their visit, they informed that they are proposing the land to assign to poor as house sites by evicting the petitioner from the land in his possession. But till 2 date no proceedings were initiated for removal of the petitioner from the land, interference with possession and enjoyment of the petitioner is illegal, requested to pass appropriate order.
4. The petitioner except filing D-Form patta, assigning an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in Sy.No.376 situated at Immadi Cheruvu village, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District and representation, filed no other document to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the land.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during hearing, requested to direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and not to dispossess the petitioner, except by due process of law.
6. Whereas, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue opposed the same on the ground that the land was not assigned to the petitioner at any point of time, since it is classified as "grazing ground" and there is no encroachment as on date. Therefore, the respondents identified the land for providing house sites to the poor people under "Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki Illu" scheme, preparing layout for assignment and the petitioner filed this petition to create hurdles to the scheme, requested to dismiss the writ petition.
7. The petitioner is claiming to be pattadar, having obtained assignment from 4th respondent for an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in Sy.No.376 situated at Immadi Cheruvu village, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same, 3 since the date of patta. Except D-Form patta, no other document like adangal pahani of Immadi Cheruvu village is filed to prove that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property in Sy.No.376. The respondents denied the very grant of D-Form patta in favour of petitioner, since it is classified as "grazing ground", while denying the possession of the petitioner.
8. Even assuming for a moment that the petitioner is not in possession, since the land is classified as "grazing ground", identification of the same for the purpose of assigning to landless poor under the scheme "Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki Illu" is contrary to clause (m) of para No.4 of BSO 15 of A.P Revenue Board Standing Orders, since "grazing ground" is a communal land for grazing cattle of a particular area, such communal land cannot be assigned. Apart from that when land is communal land, it is the duty of State to protect such communal lands, in view of judgment in Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others1 where the Supreme Court held that interest of community has to be protected and reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgment in Friends Colony Development Committee vs. State of Orissa2.
9. After the judgment in Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (1st referred supra), the State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 21.07.2011 framing guidelines for eviction of unauthorized encroachers. Hence, respondents are bound to take action against unauthorized encroachers following 1 (2011) 11 SCC 396 2 2004 (8) SCC 733 4 G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 21.07.2011 and cannot assign land to landless poor, in view of bar under BSO 15 (4)(m) of A.P Revenue Board Standing Orders and in view of principle laid down in the above judgments.
10. In view of my foregoing discussion, I am not inclined to issue direction against the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. However, respondents are directed to follow the procedure prescribed under BSO 15 (4)(m) of A.P Revenue Board Standing Orders and take appropriate steps.
11. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no costs.
12. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dated 16.03.2020 Rvk