Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
L Venkatamma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 December, 2019
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
WRIT PETITION No.20617 of 2009
ORDER:-
This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking verbatim the following relief:
"....to issue a Writ, order or directions, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the illegal action of the 2nd respondent in not taking action on the petitioner representations dated 26.08.2019, 16.09.2019, 28.10.2019, 11.11.2019 and 25.11.2019, which was made against the respondents 5, 7 and 8, who played fraud in respect of petitioner land in Sy.No.37/5 an extent of Ac.2.30 cents, situated at Komaragunta Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, 4th respondent not submitted report in compliance of 3rd respondent Lr.Roc.E/4023/2019, dated -11-2-2019, which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and violation Principle of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to conduct an enquiry and take action against the respondents 5,7 and 8 and further direct the 6th respondent to disburse the compensation to the petitioner as otherwise petitioner and her family members will suffer serious finance loss and hardship and pass .... "
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri Challa Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner; and, of learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and Assignments. Having regard to the nature of the controversy, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission. Hence, no notice is ordered to the non-official respondents. I have Perused the material record.
3. The petitioner's case, in brief, is this:
'The petitioner was granted DKT patta, on 19.01.2003, in respect of the subject land. She was put in possession of the subject property pursuant to the said patta. Subsequently, the said property was mutated in her name and she was issued a pattadar passbook. A field map was also issued to the petitioner in respect of the land in the 2 MSRM,J W.P.No.20617 of 2019 subject survey number. The petitioner, being in possession and enjoyment, is cultivating her subject land. While so, an electricity pole was laid in her property. Therefore, she became entitled to claim compensation in that regard. The 7th and 8th respondents are man and wife. They made a claim before the 6th respondent i.e., the Assistant Executive Engineer, Construction Division-1, APTRANSCO, for payment of compensation on the basis of fake pattadar passbook/s in respect of part of the land, which is assigned to the petitioner and which is in her possession, since the year 2003 i.e., from the date of issuance of patta in her name. The said respondents, having colluded with 5th respondent, in fact falsely claimed pattadar passbooks in respect of the subject land and got altered revenue entries and also the field map in respect of the subject land, though, they have no manner of right, title and interest over the subject property, which is assigned to the petitioner. The petitioner filed copies of documents to show the unauthorized alterations in respect of the subject property in the revenue records as well as the field map relating to Field No.37 of Vedurukuppam Mandal of Komaragunta Village. The 7th and 8th respondents colluded with the 5th respondent and obtained the pattadar passbooks in their favour detrimental to the interest of the petitioner by playing fraud on the petitioner and got altered the field map with regard to sub-divisions and got made entries in the passbook/s contrary to the facts. Therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved. The petitioner, in fact objected for payment of compensation to them in respect of electricity pole laid in the subject 3 MSRM,J W.P.No.20617 of 2019 land. On that, the Tahasildar, Vedurukuppam Mandal, made enquiries and addressed a letter, dated 24.07.2019, informing the Assistant Executive Engineer, Construction Division, A.P.TRANSCO i.e., 6th respondent that the petitioner made a representation for payment of compensation to her in respect of the electric pole laid in the subject land and that compensation may be paid to the petitioner. Further the said Tahasildar addressed another letter, dated 21.08.2019, to the said officer i.e., the 6th respondent referring to the contents of the earlier letter, dated 24.07.2019, and inter alia stating that on representation of one L. Adilakshmi, the Mandal Surveyor has inspected the land and found out the actual survey number of the land in which the electric pole has been installed and that he had reported that the land is that of L. Adilakshmi, and that he had also inspected the land and that his inspection revealed that the pole is laid in survey No.37/9, which is DKT patta land of said Adilakshmi and that pattadar passbook was granted to the said Adilakshmi vide khata No.839 and the land is in her possession and enjoyment and therefore, the letter, dated 24.07.2019 be ignored and compensation may be disbursed to L. Adilakshmi, W/o L. Anandaiah. In fact, the petitioner also made a request for conducting survey and demarcating her property. However, efforts are being made to pay the compensation to the non-official respondents.
In the said circumstances a cloud is cast on the right and title of the petitioner over the subject land and there is also a threat of dispossession. She also made several representations to the District Collector in the above regard. However, they are all of no avail. The 4 MSRM,J W.P.No.20617 of 2019 Tahasildar, in his two letters, had taken contradictory stands. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.'
4. Learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and Assignments submitted that in view of the very nature of the controversy, the petitioner is required to approach either the statutory authority or a civil Court for reddressal of her grievances and that the present writ petition is not maintainable.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is every likelihood of the compensation being paid by the 6th respondent to the 7th and 8th respondents and, therefore, the interests of the petitioner need to be protected in the interests of justice.
6. Having regard to the facts and submissions, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 6th respondent not to pay the compensation either to the petitioner or to the respondents 7 and 8 till the dispute is resolved by a competent authority or a Civil Court, as per law. It is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the remedies, which the law permits, in respect of the grievances, which are expressed in the writ petition. The petitioner shall, if so advised and so desires, initiate the necessary proceedings expeditiously and at any rate within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event, the petitioner files any proceeding before a competent authority or a civil Court, the same shall be disposed of by strict adherence to the procedure established by law and uninfluenced 5 MSRM,J W.P.No.20617 of 2019 by the observations, if any, in this order, as this Court did not deal with the merits of the matter.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J Date: 21.12.2019 Note:
Issue C.C. in three days.
B/o.
Pab