Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K Chinna Anjaneyulu vs The State Of Ap on 29 November, 2023
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.13374 of 2023
Between:-
K.Chinna Anjaneyulu .... Petitioner
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep.by its Principle Secretary,
Revenue Department & Others. ..... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.Ineni Venkata Prasad
Counsel for the respondents : G.P. for Revenue
ORDER:
The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus "to declare the action of the 4th respondent, without following due process of Law and direct the petitioner to evict him from the petition schedule land of an extent of Ac.10.88 cents in Survey No.141 situated in Mudigallupolam, Kalyandurg Mandal, as illegal, arbitrary etc., and consequently to direct the respondents to follow the due process of Law and mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and issue Adangal & 1-B in his name as per Record of Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, 1989."
2. The writ petitioner herein claims that he is the owner and possessor of land of an extent of Ac.10.88 cents in Survey No.141 of 2 Mudigallupolam of Ananthapuram District. He claims that originally the said land belongs to his maternal grandfather one Mr.Pasula Palappa and after the death of his grandfather, the petitioner's mother who is stated to be only daughter, got possession and enjoyment of the said land with absolute rights and raising crops without any objection from anybody. He also claims that Ryotwari Pass Book was also issued to them.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the averments made in the writ petition, made submissions that the petitioner being the owner of the subject matter property, made a representation to the 2nd respondent-District Collector in 'Spandana Programme' for issuance of Pattadar Pass Book in respect of the subject matter land and mutation of the petitioner's name in the revenue records. He submits that the 4th respondent/Tahsildar instead of considering the request of the petitioner positively, through an Endorsement dated 10.02.2023 informed that the land in question belongs to the Government and as per diglot, it is a 'Local Fund Road' and directed the petitioner to submit the documents, if 3 any, in respect of the lands for taking necessary action after examining the same. The learned counsel submits that though the petitioner furnished the relevant documents, so far no action has been taken to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and the respondent-authorities are trying to evict the petitioner from the subject land to allot the same to the third parties. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
5. Mr.G.L.Narasimha Reddy, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, made submissions on the basis of the factual report/instructions received from the 4th respondent dated 26.09.2023. He contends that except claiming that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the subject matter property, the petitioner had not filed any material/documents which establishes his claim and in the absence of any material, atleast to the prima facie satisfaction of this Court, is not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition. He submits that the Adangal filed along with the material papers, is an attested copy of the 1401 Fasli and even as seen from the same, in the relevant column the name of one Pasula Palappa, who is stated to be the petitioner's grandfather is mentioned as encroacher of an extent of Ac.3.00. Further, referring to the instructions referred to above and the material enclosed to 4 the same, the learned Government Pleader submits that as is evident from the Resettlement Register, the land of an extent of Ac.10.88 cents in Survey No.141 is mentioned as G.P.- L.F.Road. He also submits that the said survey number was sub-divided and an extent of Ac.1.00 cents out of the total extent of Ac.10.88 cents was allotted for construction of a new 33/11 KV substation in Borampalli Village, which was sanctioned under day time 9 hours supply for agricultural lands and to reduce the loads on the existing 33/11 KV substation in Kalyandurg. He submits that the Gram Panchayat has also passed a resolution in this regard. Be that as it may. He submits that the material placed on record would clearly go to show that the petitioner has no manner of right in respect of the subject matter land, the writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. He submits that in view of the pendency of the writ petition, construction of substation, which is for the benefit of the agriculturists and public at large came to a standstill and unless the interim orders are vacated, they would suffer serious prejudice and irreparable loss.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. At the outset, it may be appropriate to state that the petitioner had not filed any document/material through 5 which he is claiming rights over the subject matter property. Further, he had not filed any material to show/establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the same, except a bald statement that he is the owner and possessor of the subject matter property. The absence of the same, no positive direction or relief as prayed for, can be granted.
7. On the contrary, the Adangal of the year 1401, Fasli goes to show that the petitioner's maternal grandfather is an encroacher of an extent of Ac.3.00 cents out of the subject matter extent of Ac.10.88 cents in Survey No.141, which is classified as G.P.-L.F. Road (Government Poramboke Local Fund Road). The said document negatives the claim of the petitioner that the subject matter land is his ancestral property. The other document filed along with the material papers i.e., 1st page of Pattadar Pass Book, the details of which are not clear/legible is of no help to substantiate the case of the petitioner. Copies of cist receipts paid, if any, to the concerned Gram Pancahyat are also not filed to show that the petitioner is raising crops in the subject matter lands and thus in possession and enjoyment of the same. In the absence of any material, as rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner cannot secure any relief from this Court on mere 6 statements. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 29.11.2023 BLV 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.P.No.13374 of 2023 Date: 29.11.2023 BLV