Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Duvvuru Koteswara Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 July, 2022
Author: D.Ramesh
Bench: D.Ramesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.12699 of 2022
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not restoring the names of the petitioners in the revenue records with respect to lands of extent of Ac.7.34cents and Ac.10.00cents in Sy.No.1 of Oduru village, Chillakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District now Tirupati District respectively even though the High Court set aside the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in D.Dis (E10) 5691/2006 dated 03.01.2008 vide orders in W.P.No.11258 of 2008 dated 26.11.2008 and restoring the other names of the land owners in Sy.No.1 of Oduru village except the petitioners names as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to restore the names of the petitioners in the revenue record with respect to subject property.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. The contention of the petitioners is that they purchased land in an extent of Ac.7.34cents in Sy.No.1 and land of an extent of Ac.2.66cents in Sy.No.73 situated at Oduru Village, Chillakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District now Tirupati District from one Chittadi Krishnamma, w/o Venkataramireddy vide registered sale deed document no.2554 of 2004 dated 08.10.2004. The vendors husband purchased the said land from one Yedam Venkata Krishna Reddy vide registered sale deed document no.1291/1970. After purchasing the said land the name of the petitioners was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass books and title deeds are also issued with respect to said land. The 2nd petitioner purchased land in an extent of Ac.10.00cents in Sy.No.1 situated at Oduru 2 Village, Chillakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District from one Chittadi Krishnamma, W/o Venkataramireddy vide registered sale deed document no.2553 of 2004 dated 08.10.2004 and her vendor's husband purchased the said land from one Yedam Venkata Krishna Reddy vide registered sale deed document no.1291/1970. After purchasing the said land the name of the 2nd petitioner was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued with respect to said land in her favour.
4. When the Government proposed to dig Telugu Ganga Canal from the lands situated in Sy.No.1 of Oduru Village, Chillakuru Mandal and land of an extent of Ac.5.00cents was effected in the excavation of canal. 3 rd respondent refused to give compensation to the land owners in Sy.No.1 on the ground that entire land is inam land and directed the 4th respondent to cancel the pattas of the farmers over the said land. Later 3rd respondent initiated suo-motu proceedings u/Sec.9 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1989 and later cancelled the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued to them and other land owners in Sy.No.1 vide proceedings D.Dis (E10).5691/2006 dated 03.01.2008 and pursuant to the same the names of the petitioners were deleted in adangal and 1B with respect to the said land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed writ petitions before this Court and the same were allowed setting aside the orders of the 3rd respondent vide W.P.No.21632 of 2008, 11258 of 2008, 17099 of 2006 and 19171 of 2006 with the following observations:
"In the instant case, it was not even pointed out that the petitioners did not possess the corresponding rights, before they were issued the pattadar pass books. Further, it was more than a decade ago, that the pass books were issued, and few decades earlier thereto, the petitioners or their predecessors in title have acquired rights, vis-à-vis the land. The rights, which have such a solid legal and factual foundation, cannot be the subject matter of a whimsical exercise of power, by the 3rd respondent.
The way in which the 3rd respondent exercised the suo-motu powers, is not only defective, but is also objectionable. In case, he intended to invoke powers under Section 9 of the Act, it was always open to him to issue a 3 notice to the effected parties, indicating the basis therefor. The 3 rd respondent directed the 4 respondent to inquire into the matter and submit a th report. The latter, in turn, submitted a report, on 16.11.2006. That report was treated as the basis for exercise of suo-motu powers. It is an instance of misuse of statutory provisions. The 3rd respondent has treated Section 9 of the Act, as a platform, to translate his personal opinions and dislikes into reality. The allegations of the petitioners that the officer, holding the post of Joint Collector, had thrown an open challenge, that he would ensure that no compensation would be paid to the petitioners gains acceptability. Viewed from any angle, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law.
5. Subsequently, the petitioners have also filed appropriate civil suits against the respondents on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur and the same were numbered as O.S.No.211/2007 and O.S.No.212/2007, the said suits were decreed on 02.4.2012 declaring that the petitioners/plaintiffs are the owners of the said properties and granted injunction in their favour and against the respondents. After that the petitioners have made a request to the respondents to restore their names in revenue records and issue pattadar pass books vide representation dated 27.8.2020. When the said representations were not considered by the respondents, left with no option, the petitioners have approached this Court and filed writ petitions and the same were numbered as W.P.No.26590 of 2021 and the same was disposed of vide orders dated 15.11.2021 with the following directions:
"In view of the above reasons, this Court finds no justification on the part of the 5th respondent herein in not taking any action even pursuant to the above referred orders. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 5th respondent to take appropriate action/pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 22.5.2021 pursuant to the letters of the District Collector, SPSR Nellore District issued vide Rc.F3.627/2021 dated 31.5.2021 and file no.COLNLR-ESEEOLR/400/2021-SA(F3)-COLLNLR, dated 02.7.2021. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."
6. Subsequent to the disposal of the above said writ petitions, the respondents have passed the endorsement on 24.02.2022 wherein the 4th respondent has submitted that the respondents have taken up enquiry under Inam Abolition Act, 1956 and enjoyment survey was conducted. 4 Soon after the completion of the procedure under Inam Abolition Act, the names of the writ petitioners may mutate in revenue records. Assailing the said endorsement the present writ petition is filed.
7. Though several opportunities were granted to respondents to file counter, till today, they could not be able to file counter.
8. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge in O.S.No.211/2017 and O.S.No.212/2007, it is not in dispute that before passing orders by the 3rd respondent herein vide proceedings dated 03.01.2018, the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records and subsequent to the said proceedings, the names of the petitioners were removed from the revenue records and it is also not in dispute that the said proceedings were interdicted by this Court in various writ petitions. In view of the said circumstances, the respondents have no option except to restore the names of the petitioners in the revenue records and to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in view of the setting aside of the proceedings of the 3rd respondent.
9. In view of the said circumstances, there shall be a direction to the 4th respondent to consider and issue pattadar pass books and title deeds by restoring the names of the petitioners in the revenue records within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 22.8.2022 RD 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.12699 of 2022 Dated 22.7.2022 RD