Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kiran Devi Daga, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 11 July, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No.21525 OF 2020
AND
WRIT PETITION Nos.10670 and 11501 of 2022
ORDER:-
1. As the subject land in all the three (03) Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed by this common order.
2. The petitioner claims that she is absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.3.66 ½ cents in Sy.No.5/1 and an extent of Ac.3.27 cents in Sy.No.5/2 of Gajulrega Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District, having purchased the same by virtue of registered sale deed dated 19.08.1996 vide document No.733 of 1996 for valid sale consideration from the legal heirs of one Smt.M.Visalakshi.
3. It is further case of the petitioner that she approached the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram seeking to mutate her name in revenue records and to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds. After conducting a thorough enquiry, the request of the petitioner was considered and accordingly her name was entered in revenue records and she was also issued pattadar pass books and title deeds.
4. It is her further case that the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram included the property of the petitioner in the prohibited properties list which was furnished to the registration department during the month of February 2012, on the ground that, the subject land is assigned land.
5. It is further case of the petitioner that her vendor Smt.M.Visalakshi filed Civil Suit in OS No.308 of 1955, on the file of District Munsiff Court, Vizianagaram against the District Collector for declaration of her title over the subject land. Upon contest the said suit was decreed by Judgment and Decree dated 31.10.1957. Assailing the correctness of the said Judgment and Decree, the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam preferred a regular appeal in AS No.6 of 1958, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Court by Judgment and Decree dated 17.12.1959 confirmed the Judgment of Trial Court. Thereafter, the State filed Second Appeal before this Court vide SA No.928 of 1960 and eventually and the same was dismissed by Judgment and Decree dated 16.10.1963, confirming the Judgments passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The said judgment passed in Second Appeal attained finality.
6. It is further case of the petitioner that despite the Judgment dated 16.10.1963 passed in SA No.928 of 1960, the respondents did not delete the subject land from the list of prohibited properties. Therefore, the Tahsildar submitted a report dated 07.04.2012 to the District Collector to seek legal opinion whether any SLP can be filed against the order dated 16.10.1963 passed in SA No.928 of 1960 i.e., after a lapse of 49 years. In the said letter dated 07.04.2012, the Tahsildar also sought for clarification with regard to change of classification of the subject land from AWD to Ryotwari, so as to avoid any misunderstanding with regard to nature of land. As the subject property was enumerated under list of prohibited properties, representations dated 21.02.2014 and 16.08.2013 were made to respondent Nos.4 & 5 respectively seeking to delete the subject lands from the prohibited properties list. When there was no action from the respondents, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition vide WP No.1897 of 2016 and after hearing the parties, the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 25.01.2016, directing the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the District Collector, who shall consider the same in the light of the directions issued by this Court in WA No.343 of 2015 and batch and to take appropriate decision in the matter.
7. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner claims that she made representation dated 09.03.2016 to the District Collector and the same was forwarded to Revenue Divisional Officer, who in turn forwarded the same to the Tahsildar through his letter dated 30.03.2016. Thereafter, the Tahsildar issued endorsement dated 24.06.2016, requesting the petitioner to produce certain documentary evidence to de-notify the subject lands. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted letter dated 27.07.2016 by enclosing all the relevant documents in respect of her claim. When there was no action, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition vide WP No.21525 of 2020.
8. It is further case of the petitioner that pending the said writ petition and pending consideration of the representation made by the petitioner seeking to de-notify the subject lands from the prohibited properties list, the subject lands were proposed for acquisition for laying of railway by pass line from Gottlam to Nellimarla. Thereafter, the Tahsildar addressed letter dated 22.07.2020 seeking instructions from the District Collector for handing over the advance possession of the subject land in favour of RLI Vikas Nigam Limited (7th respondent in writ petition No.11501 of 2022).
9. While things stood thus, the Tahsildar issued at another notice dated 09.03.2022 asking the petitioner to submit necessary documentary evidence in respect of her claim. The petitioner claims that she made representation dated 15.03.2022 to the Tahsildar with all relevant documents. It is further case of the petitioner that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram issued endorsement dated 15.03.2022, whereby and where under rejected the request of the petitioner to delete the subject lands from the list of prohibited properties furnished under Registration Act, 1908. Questioning the said endorsement, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition vide W.P.No.10670 of 2022. Pending the above writ petitions, the Tahsildar issued proceedings dated 07.04.2022, where under resumed the subject lands by exercising powers under Section 4(1) of Act 9, 1977, on the ground that the petitioner has purchased the property which was originally assigned in favour of the petitioner vendor. Questioning the said order dated 17.04.2022 she filed Writ Petition vide WP No.11501 of 2022.
10. In all the three (03) Writ Petitions, the Tahsildar filed counter affidavit inter-alia contending that though all the civil Courts right from District Munisif Court to this Court have passed decrees against the government, classification of land was not changed from AWD to Ryothwari in settlement record as the original owner or the petitioner have not submitted any claim in respect of subject lands for change of classification to zeriothy, as a result of which, the classification of lands continued as AWD lands in revenue records and therefore it was included under prohibited properties list prepared under Section 22-A of Andhra Pradesh Registration Act. It is further contended that Gajularega Village of Vizianagaram Mandal is an Estate Village and it was taken over in exercise of powers conferred under the provisions of Estates Abolition Act, 1948 along with the main estate as per Section 15 of the said Act. It is further stated that, the Settlement Officer is the competent authority to examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which the land holder claims a Ryothori Patta under the said Act.
11. It is further contended that subsequently supplementary survey was conducted and after final check operations, fair adangal was introduced with effect from 01.07.1982 in the place of settlement fair adangal for day to day revenue administration. As per the final check operations, fair adangal of Gajularega Village, the name of the petitioner vendor Smt.M.Visalakshmi was shown in the revenue records as the same was assigned to her.
12. By taking into consideration of the nature of the land, the respondents pressed into service the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 and accordingly issued notice in Form-I and Form-II on 21.02.2011 and 01.03.2012 to which the petitioners submitted explanation stating that the subject land is zeroithy land by enclosing the copies of the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioners vendors.
13. It is further contended that, the present writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has got alternative remedy of filing appeal under Act 9/77, without availing the same he rushed to this Court, by filing the writ petition.
14. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government for Revenue for the respondents.
15. Perused material available on record.
16. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the subject said lands cannot be treated as assigned lands. The property was purchased by the petitioner by virtue of registered sale deed dated 19.08.1996, for valid consideration from the legal heirs of Smt.M.Visalakshi. In support of her claim sale deed and all relevant documents including revenue records reflecting her name are filed along with writ petition.
17. Apart from the same, the learned Senior Counsel would place reliance on proceedings in RC No.1271/ 2010/B/74/2012 issued by the then Thasildar, Vizianagaram to the District Collector. Where under, it is categorically observed that as per the assignment records the subject lands are not reflected as assigned lands. It is further observed therein that, in Final check operations to fair adangal also, no where it is mentioned as D-form patta was issued in respect of the subject lands. If at all the subject land was assigned in favour of the petitioners vendor, the extent should have been less than Ac.5-00 cents. The proceedings of the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram also clearly states that as per final check operations of fair adangal, the subject land was not notified as assigned land. Apart from the same much reliance is placed on the Judgments passed by the competent Civil Courts in favour of the petitioners vendor, where under the title of the petitioner's vendor was declared and the same was confirmed by this Court by Judgment and Decree dated 16.10.1963 in SA No.928 of 1960. Admittedly the said Judgment and Decree attained finality.
18. It is pertinent to note that, on perusal of the report dated 07.04.2012, it can be inferred that, action was initiated against the petitioner pursuant to a representation said to have been made by the local people's representatives, despite no material on record to show that the subject land was ever assigned in favour of the petitioner's vendor.
19. Further when the matter was taken up for hearing, this Court by order dated 16.06.2025 directed the respondents to produce copy of the DKT patta alleged to have been issued in favour of the petitioner's vendor. Though sufficient time was given to the respondents to produce the same, they did not file copy of the same before this Court. On the contrary, by letter dated 02.07.2025, the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram informed to the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition/Revenue stating that the original D-Patta related to the petition lands is not available in the office records. Further, it is the specific case of the respondents that DKT patta was issued in favour of the petitioner vendor, but nothing is placed on record to substantiate the same. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the contention of the respondents cannot be countenanced and accordingly the same is hereby rejected. On the other hand, as noted supra, the title over the land in dispute was declared in favour of the petitioner's vendor Smt. M. Visalakshi by competent Civil Courts including this Court in SA No.928 of 1960 and the Judgment passed by this Court attained finality long ago. In view thereof, by no stretch of imagination, the subject land can be treated as assigned land.
20. For the foregoing reasons, the resumption order dated 07.04.2022 issued by the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition No.11501 of 2022 is allowed.
21. Coming to the impugned endorsement dated 15.03.2023, issued by the Special District Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer/Parvathipuram, rejecting the petitioner's request to de-notify the subject land from the list of prohibited properties is concerned, the same is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as it is for the District Collector to pass appropriate orders in the matter. Therefore the endorsement dated 15.03.2023 is hereby set aside.
22. In view of the order passed in WP No.11501 of 2022, the District Collector, Vizianagaram is directed to delete the land to an extent of Ac.3.66 ½ cents in Sy.No.5/1 and an extent of Ac.3.27 cents in Sy.No.5/2 of Gajulrega Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District from the list of prohibited properties issued under Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908. Accordingly the W.P.No.10670 of 2022 is allowed.
23. In so far as, the Writ Petition No.21525 of 2020, the writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in proposing to lay railway by pass line in the land pertaining to the petitioner without initiating proceedings under Act, 30 of 2013. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the Writ Petition the subject land was taken over by Railway department from the Revenue Divisional Officer.
24. In view of the findings given in the writ petition No.21525 of 2020, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Act, 30 of 2013, preferably within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 11.07.2025 DR 419 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP No.21525 of 2020 AND WP Nos.10670 and 11501 of 2022 Date 11.07.2025 DR