Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gopaldas Dyvadeenam vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 March, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.5078 oi 2020
This Petition, under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of lndia, is filed by the
petitioner, to issue Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of respondents in
interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession over the land in an extent of Ac.4.03 cents in Sy.No.1571/1 , Chennampalle Revenue Village, Badvel Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, granted in favour of petitioner's father vide DKT Patta No.540/8O, dt.29-12-1970, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and set aside the notice vide 816712020, dt.16-O2-2O2O addressed to whomsoever concerned and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property.
The petitioner's father was a landless poor, he was granted patta in the year 1970 in an extent of Ac.4-03 cents in Sy.No.1571/1 of Chennampalle Revenue Village, Badevel Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. From the date of assignment the petitioner's father was in possession and enjoyment of the subject properties during his life time. The land was brought under cultivation by incuring huge expenditure before grant of patta itself. Therefore, considering the long and uninterrupted possession, DKT patta was issued in favour of petitioner's father. Pattadar pass book and title deed were also issued vide Patta No.13. After the death of father of petitioner, the petitioner succeeded the property and he is continuously in possession and enjoyment of the property in his own right.
While the matter stood thus, the 4th respondent affixed a notice vide 8,16712020, d1.16-02-202O addressed to whomsoever concerned in the said land stating that the petitioner is an 'encroacher' and asked him to give reply. lmmediately, the petitioner approached the Tahsildar's office along with the notice, but, the 4th respondent herein not at all heed the words of petitioner and threatening to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land s( 2 The petitioner produced a copy of DKT patta, pattadar pass book and title deed in support of his contention, so also, the land revenue receipts, Adangal for the land in his possession as 'patta holder' and a notice d1J6-02-202O issued under the provisions of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, to contend that when a patta was granted in favour of the father of petitioner issue of notice under Land Encroachment Act is a serious illegality. lf the petitioner violated any terms and conditions of patta a course open to the respondents is under A.P. Act lX of 1977, but for the reasons best known to the 4th respondent, the said notice is issued illegally and requested to issue a direction as prayed in the writ petition.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignments fairly admitted about issuing of patta in favour of the father of petitioner for the year 1970 in an extent of Ac.4-03 cents in Sy.No.1571/1 of Chennampalle Revenue Village, Badevel Mandal vide DKT Patta No.540/80, dt.29-12-1970 and his name was also mutated in the revenue records, while contending that the petitioner encroached the land in Sy.No.157/1 . Therefore, the respondents are contemplating to remove the person in unlawful possession in Sy.No.1570 of Chennampalle Revenue Village not from the land in Sy.No.1571/1 and requested to pass appropriate order.
It is an undisputed fact that a patta was issued in favour of the father of the petitioner on 29-12-1970 vide DKT patta No.540/80 subject to certain conditions. lt is not the case of respondents that the petitioner or his father violated the terms and conditions of DKT patta.
The petitioner's father also obtained pattadar pass book and title deed for the subject land. Said contention is substantiated by producing the photostat copies of pattadar pass book and title deed. The possession of this petitioner is evidenced in Adangal/Pahani and Form-1 B (ROR) for the land in dispute. Even otheruise, the respondents disputed the possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No.1571/1 in Chennampalle Village, sinpiJ was assigned to the father of Vr 3 t petitioner. Hence, I find prima facle that the father of petitioner's father was in possession during his life time in an extent of Ac.4.03 cents in Sy.No.1571/1 and after death of his father the petitioner is continuing in possession and enjoyment of the property.
Whereas, the 4th respondent issued Form-18 notice under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act vide 816712020, d1.16-02-2020 alleging that the petitioner encroached land in an extent of Ac.4.03 cents in Sy.No.1571/1 of Chennampalle Village and manufacturing bricks in the land. More curiously, it was classified as'dotted land' in the schedule annexed to the notice. When, once the petitioner's father was assigned an extent of Ac.4.03 cents in Sy.No.'1571/1 of Chennampalle Village, the father of the petitioner became the owner of the property and after his death, the petitioner succeeded the same by inheritance, thereby the possession of this petitioner cannot be described as unauthorized/unlawful or illegal and he is in lawful possession, being beneficiary under the assignment of DKT patta No.540/80, dt.29-12-1970. Therefore, invoking jurisdiction under the provisions of A.P. Land Encroachment Act and issuing notice for the land assigned to this petitioner calling upon him to remove the encroachments is a serious illegality. Hence, the notice is hereby declared as illegal and arbitrary while setting aside the same.
ln the result, the writ petition is allowed, declaring the notice impugned in the writ petition as illegal and arbitrary, while directing the respondents not to dispossess this petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac.4.03 cents in Sy.No.1571/1 of Chennampalle village. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellane i' mr nandinn shall stand
closed.
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 03-03-2020
IS