Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mirram Chinnakka, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 21 March, 2025
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010277882017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3209]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.19533 of 2019
Between:
Mirram Chinnakka ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Mr.M.SIVA KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. G.P. FOR REVENUE
2. MR.M.SRI ATCHUT
2
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in attempting to dispossess the petitioner herein and attempted to take forcible possession of the petitioner's land highhandedly situated in an extent of Ac.0-70 cents in Survey No.662/1 situated at Gunthapalli Village, Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District, without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry and without any authority as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, against to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, particularly Article 300A, apart from violation of principles of natural justice and to consequently direct the respondents nto to interfere with the petitioner's property situated in an extent of Ac.0- 70 cents in Survey No.662/1 situated at Gunthapalli Village, Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District, without following due process of law and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2) Heard Mr.M. Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing the official respondents and M.Sri Atchyut, learned counsel for the 5th respondent.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the property of an extent of Ac.0-70 cents situated in Sy.No.662/1 of Gunthapalli Village, Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District and the same was assigned by the 4th respondent vide DKT No.139/1413, dated 20.09.2004. Since then, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. He submits that originally an 3 extent of Ac.2-00 cents in Yellampeta Village, K.G.Pally, Siddaout Taluk, Kadapa District, of the petitioner' father-in-law was acquired for the purpose of Somasila Project and in lieu of the same, the revenue authorities have assigned the subject matter land to the petitioner. He submits that the pattadar passbook and title deeds in respect of the land in question was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner's name was mutated in the revenue records viz., 1B Register, Adangal etc.
4) While so, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to the petitioner's utter surprise, the 4th respondent issued a notice dated 27.06.2016, wherein it was stated that the 5th respondent gave a complaint that the subject matter land is her ancestral land, that the revenue authorities changed the classification of the land as Government land and assigned DKT pattas, and she requested to reassign the same to her. He submits that on receipt of the said notice, the petitioner submitted her explanation along with the relevant documents and thereafter the respondent had dropped the further action. However, on 27.11.2019, the 4th respondent along with his staff made an attempt to disposes the petitioner forcibly from the subject matter land without issuing any notice, much less by affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her case and as the respondent authorities are resorting to highhanded action of forcible dispossession of the petitioner, he submits that the present Writ Petition is filed. Referring to the 4 averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent, more particularly with reference to the assignment of the subject matter land to the petitioner in view of the acquisition of the land of the petitioner's father-in-law for Somasila Project and the issuance of pattadar passbook / title deed to the petitioner and mutation of her name in the revenue records, learned counsel would contend that in view of the same, the action on the part of the 4th respondent without following due process of law is not sustainable and accordingly, prays for allowing the Writ Petition.
5) On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent made submissions with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit.
6) Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.
7) As seen from the averments made in the counter affidavit of the 4 th respondent, it would appear that in view of the claim made by the 5th respondent with reference to the subject matter land, admittedly, a notice dated 27.06.2016 was issued calling upon the petitioner to attend the office of the 4th respondent along with the documents on 02.07.2016. Thereafter, neither further action was taken with reference to the said notice nor was any order appears to have been passed. The counter affidavit is silent in this regard. Be that as it may. A reading of the 5 averments in the counter affidavit would go to show that the assignment of the subject matter land in favour of the petitioner and her possession over the same are not in dispute.
8) Whereas, the 5th respondent while denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, filed a counter affidavit stating as if she came to know about the filing of the present Writ Petition only when W.P.No.5518 of 2023 was filed by her. The said statement cannot be readily accepted as the present Writ Petition was filed in 2019 and an interim order was granted on 04.12.2019 directing to maintain status quo during the pendency of the Writ Petition. A copy of the said interim order would have been undoubtedly received by the 5th respondent as it was dispatched through Registered Post by RPAD by the High Court Registry on 13.12.2019. Yet another aspect, which may be worth mentioning at this juncture is filing of W.P.No.5518 of 2023 by the 5th respondent with reference to the inaction on the part of the Tahsildar in taking action on the 2nd respondent's communication dated 18.06.2022 to enter the 5th respondent's name in the web land portal in respect of the subject matter extent of Ac.0-70 cents of sy.No.662/1, Gunthapalli Village, Badvel Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. A perusal of the said communication dated 18.06.2022 filed along with the 5th respondent's counter affidavit would reveal that the DKT patta was granted to the Writ Petitioner herein i.e., M.Chinnakka and in view of the 5th respondent's 6 request to enter her name in web land portal in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.0-70 cents in Sy.No.662/1, the District Collector directed the 4th respondent/Tahsildar to enquire into the matter as per rules. It is discernable from the orders passed in W.P.No.5518 of 2023 that the writ petitioner herein has not been made a party in W.P.No.5518 of 2023. Therefore, she there is no occasion for her to bring it to the notice of the Court about the present Writ Petition and interim orders dated 04.12.2019. Be that as it may.
9) As seen from the order In W.P.No.5518 of 2023, dated 08.05.2023 it is apparent that the learned Judge had merely disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Tahsildar to enquire into the matter pursuant to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 18.06.2022 and take appropriate decision after hearing of the parties concerned, including the writ petitioner therein and other claimants and upon verification of the records and the subject matter land.
10) In view of the said order dated 08.05.2023 and appreciating the contention of the writ petitioner that the action of the official respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner without issuing any notice is contrary to law, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 4th respondent to issue appropriate notice to the petitioner herein and the 5th respondent and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, by affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties 7 as expeditiously possible, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11) Pending passing of orders as indicated above, the interim orders granted by this Court on 04.12.2019 shall remain in force.
12) With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
13) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date:21.03.2025.
SSV 8 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.P.No.19533 of 2019 Date:21.03.2025 SSV