Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt.P.Seetha Mahalakshmi,Krishna ... vs Tahsildar,Krishna Dist, 4 on 29 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No. 20137 OF 2013
ORDER:
Heard Smt K.Sesharajyam, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt V.Hima Bindu, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Y.Subba Rao, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
2. By Order dated 19.09.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022, the Writ Petitioner Nos.2 to 7 have been impleaded as Legal Representatives to the Writ Petitioner No.1. For the sake of convenience, this Court will refer to the original Writ Petitioner only.
3. The prayer made in the present Writ Petition is as under:
"Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents i.e., not completing the process of entering my name in the Revenue and Village Records against the land in an extent of 19 acres in R.S.No.454/1 of Katrenipadu Village, Musunuru Mandal with proposed new sub division numbers 527 to 529 as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and consequently to direct the 2 respondents to complete that process of incorporation of my name in the Revenue and Village records and also issue Pattadar Pass book and Title deed and intimate the said changes to the Sub Registrar, Nuzvid within the time fixed by this Hon'ble Court or to pass any other order or orders."
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Writ Petitioner submitted that she is the rightful owner of an extent of Ac.19.00 in R.S.No.454/1 of Katrenipadu Village, Musunuru Mandal, Krishna District (new Sub Division Nos.527 to 529). It is contended by the Writ Petitioner that by proceedings dated 17.10.1994, in Case No.P2/1853/91, the Court of the Commissioner of Survey Settlements and Land Records, upheld the full ownership and possessory rights of the Writ Petitioner as against the Respondents namely the Mandal Revenue Officer, Musunuru Mandal, Krishna District and the Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru. It is also stated that the claim of the Petitioners draws its strength from the year 1943.
5. Having been aggrieved by the Order passed by the Commissioner of Survey Settlements and Land Records, bearing Proceedings No.P2/1853/91, dated 17.10.1994, the 3 Mandal Revenue Officer filed W.P.No.29032 of 1997 for quashing of the Order passed by the Settlement Officer (dated 17.10.1994). The present Writ Petitioner has also filed W.P.No.26373 of 1997 seeking an appropriate Writ or direction to the Respondent Authorities to implement the same Order dated 17.10.1994 passed by the Commissioner of Survey Settlements and Land Records and to consequently direct the Respondents therein to mutate the Revenue Records in her favour.
6. By a Common Order dated 9.02.2007 in W.P.Nos.26373 and 29032 of 1997, the learned Single Judge of this Court issued Directions. Relevant Directions are as under:-
"5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that these writ petitions also can be disposed of in similar limes.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with a direction to the authorities i.e., the Mandal Revenue Officer, Musunuru Mandal, Krishna District and the District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam to implement the Order dated 17.10.1994 passed in P2/1853/91 by the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad within a 4 period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
However, it is made clear that if the Mandal Revenue Officer, has any grievance, he can move the original authority i.e., the Settlement Officer to exercise his suo motu revisional jurisdiction and pass appropriate orders and similarly he may also approach the Divisional Forest Officer and file an application for invoking his jurisdiction and authority under the Forest Conservation Act and such of the Acts for the time being in force."
7. By this Common Order directions were issued to the Official Respondents to implement the Order passed by the Commissioner of Survey Settlements and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dated 17.10.1994 in No.P2/1853/91, within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the said order. By this Common Order, the learned Single Judge of this Court has impliedly dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer in W.P.No.29032 of 1997 challenging the Order bearing No.P2/1853/91, dated 17.10.1994, however, by giving liberty to the Mandal Revenue Officer to either approach the Settlement Officer by invoking the Revisionary Jurisdiction or to approach the Divisional Forest Officer (Respondent No.2 in the Order passed by the Settlement 5 Officer dated 17.10.1994 in Proceedings No.P2/1853/91). It is an admitted fact that the Divisional Forest Officer, though suffered an Order of Settlement Officer dated 17.10.1994, did not initiate any action. Similarly, the Mandal Revenue Officer did not approach the Settlement Officer in pursuance of the liberty granted through the Common Order by this Court.
8. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that this Order has become final and that the Writ Petitioner has submitted representations for implementation of this Common Order dated 09.02.2007 in W.P.Nos.26373 and 29032 of 1997. A Petition was also submitted by the Writ Petitioner which is titled as Prajavani Petition No.96455 dated 08.04.2013 (Ex.P7).
9. While referring this Prajavani Petition No.96455, submitted by the Writ Petitioner, the Respondent No.1 addressed a letter to Respondent No.2 (Ex.P6) stating that the Common Order passed in favour of the Writ Petitioner and against the Mandal Revenue Officer has become final and that the Collector has once recommended for the 6 implementation of the orders of this Court. It is further stated in the said letter bearing Rc.A/2241/2012, dated 02.01.2013 that in pursuance of the directions of the District Collector dated 08.01.2008, the Tahsildar has submitted a scrutinized record to the Collector on 30.03.2010. It is also stated that the Collector has sought a legal opinion and that the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, rendered his opinion that so long as the Settlement Patta and the Orders of this Court (Common Order dated 09.02.2007) directing to implement the said Patta of the Writ Petitioner are in force, there is no impleadment to implement the said Patta in compliance with the directions of this Court passed in the Common Order dated 09.02.2007 in W.P.Nos.26373 and 29032 of 1997.
10. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that three generations of the family of the Writ Petitioner were relegated to a series of litigation just to get their names mutated in the Revenue Record in accordance with law. This apart, though the Settlement Officer has passed the 7 Order on 17.10.1994, even after almost three decades the Writ Petitioner is still undergoing the litigation process on account of the apathy of the Respondent Authorities and careless attitude of the Authorities towards the Orders passed by this Court, which have attained finality against the Divisional Forest Officer on 17.10.1994 and against the Revenue Authorities way back on 09.02.2007.
11. Sri Y.Subba Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader has brought to the notice of this Court, the Counter Affidavit filed by the Tahsilder (Respondent No.1) dated 16.02.2015. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Paragraph Nos.7 to 9 of the Counter Affidavit which are extracted hereunder:
"7. It is submitted that the Divisional Forest Officer, Vijayawada has filed an objection statement before the Collector, Krishna in response of the claim of Smt P.Seethamahalakshmi in R.S.No.454/1 of Katrenipadu Village for an extent of Ac.19.00 cents which is existing Katrenipadu Forest Block.
According to Sec.7(1) of A.P. Forest Act during the interval between the publication of a notification in the A.P., Gazette u/s (4) and date fixed for the notification u/s.15. No right shall be acquired by any person in or over the land include in the notification u/s.4. No new house shall be 8 built or plantation formed no fresh clearing for cultivation or for any other purpose shall he made, on such land no tress shall be cut from such land for the purpose of trade or manufacture. According the Sec.7(2) of A.P.Forest Act, 1967 no pattas in such land shall be granted by or on behalf of the Government.
8. It is submitted that according to the Guidelines of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the term Forest land mentioned section 2 of the Act refers to Reserve Forests, Protected Forests or any area recorded as forest (Adavi) in the Government Records, lands which are notified u/s 4 of A.P.Forest Act 1967. All proposals for diversion of such areas to any non foresty purposes, even if the land is privately owned, would require the prior approval of the Central Government.
9. It is submitted that in this regard the Collector, Krishna in Rc.F5/1038/2007, dt.05.05.2011 has addressed the GP for Revenue, Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad requesting to give legal opinion for implementation of Hon'ble High Court Order dt.09.02.2007. The Government Pleader has given his opinion that so long as the settlement patta is in force and in view of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court directing to implement the said patta in favour of Smt Parvathaneni Seetha Mahalakshmi W/o.(late) Venkata Narasimsharao, there is no impediment to implement the said patta in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court passed in W.P.No.26373/97. A report was already submitted from this office to the Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam for issue of necessary instructions based on the report of the Government Pleader for Revenue, A.P., Hyderabad for taking further action in the matter."
12. It is noticed by this Court that except the bald averments in Para Nos.7 to 9, no documents are filed in 9 support of the contentions of the Respondents. The gist of the contentions of the Respondents, in their Counter Affidavit, is that the Divisional Forest Officer, Vijayawada, has filed an Objection Statement before the Collector; and that, as per Section 7(1) of the A.P.Forest Act, during the interval between the publication of a Notification in the A.P.Gazette u/s (4) and the date fixed for the Notification u/s.15, no right can be acquired by any person in or over the land. Except making this bald averment, the Counter Affidavit is bereft of the material particulars and the supporting documents to indicate the objections of the Divisional Forest Officer before the District Collector as well as any other proceedings that indicates any interest by the Forest Department.
13. It is pertinent to notice here that in the Proceedings in the Order passed by the Commissioner of Survey Settlements and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dated 17.10.1994 in P2/1853/91, the Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru, is arrayed as Respondent No.2. It is also pertinent to mention here that this Order 10 was challenged by the Mandal Revenue Officer in W.P.No.29032 of 1997, where as the Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru, having been arrayed as Respondent No.2 in the Proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner, did not initiate any legal proceeding to assail the Order dated 17.10.1994. In view of this, this Court can safely hold that the Order dated 17.10.1994 passed by the Commissioner of Survey Settlements and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in the proceedings bearing No.P2/1853/91, has become final against the Divisional Forest Officer on 17.10.1994 and against the Mandal Revenue Officer on 09.02.2007 (in Common Order in W.P.No.26373 and 29032 of 1997).
14. In view of the above facts and having considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Y.Subba Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader, this Court holds that the inaction on the part of the Respondents in implementing the Order of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dated 11 17.10.1994 in P2/1853/91 and the Common Order dated 09.02.2007 in W.P.Nos.26373 and 29032 of 1997, having become final against Respondent No.3, are arbitrary and illegal.
15. This Court particularly takes note of the fact that the directions issued by this Court in the Common Order dated 09.02.2007 in W.P.Nos.26373 and 29032 of 1997, though having become final way back on 09.02.2007, have not been implemented by the Respondents therein from 09.02.2007 till date. As it can be seen from the record that the Writ Petitioner has submitted a representation (Prajavani Petition) on 08.04.2013 (Ex.P7) and that in intradepartmental correspondence between the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 02.01.2013 (Ex.P6), there is a reference to this Prajavani Petition No.96455. Even if this is considered to be the date of representation, it appears to the Court that the Official Respondents have not complied with the directions of this Court in the Common Order even after 02.01.2013. This attitude on the part of Official Respondents reflects the 12 careless attitude of the Official Respondents in not respecting and implementing the Common Order passed by this Court in the year 2007. This Writ Petitioner was again constrained to approach this Court in the year 2013 and had to wait for another nine years for the disposal of this Writ Petition. Even during the pendency of this Writ Petition, the Respondents have only thought it fit to file a Counter Affidavit as an eye wash without any substantive contention, as there cannot be one, but have not chosen to atleast redress the grievance of the Writ Petitioner. In view of the findings, as rendered above, this Writ Petition is allowed.
16. While allowing the present Writ petition, after taking into account the observations of this Court, this Court deems it appropriate to examine whether to initiate suo moto contempt proceedings against the Officers concerned, for the purpose of fixation of accountability and responsibility. This Court deems it fit to take the date 02.01.2013, which is a intradepartmental correspondence between the Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer 13 bearing Rc.A/2241/2012 and direct the Respondents to file an Affidavit disclosing the names of the Officers and the dates (period) that the various Officers have held their positions as 1) Tahsilder, 2) Revenue Divisional Officer,
3) Joint Collector, 4) District Collector, 5) Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, from 02.01.2013 till date. This shall be done in two weeks time.
17. Costs will be determined after considering the Affidavit, to be filed by the Respondents.
18. List the matter 02.11.2022, for compliance.
19. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of in terms of this order.
_______________________________ (G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J) Dt: 29.09.2022.
GPJ 14 170 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 20137 OF 2013 29.09.2022 GPJ