Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M. Narasimha Reddy And Ors. vs The Superintendent Engineer, ... on 14 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(3)ALT295
ORDER R. Ramanujam, J.
1. The petitioners, who are three in number, filed this Writ Petition. Their case is that they are owners of Ac.25.04 guntas of land in Survey Nos.207 and 208 of Sripathipalli village, Warangal District. Originally, these lands are joint family property of one Sri M.Mohan Reddy and Sri M.Narayana Reddy, who were brothers. 1st and 2nd petitioners herein are the sons of the said Mohan Reddy and the 3rd petitioner herein is the son of the said Narayana Reddy. Their further case is that there was a family partition in the year 1983 and they were allotted the said lands in that partition, which, of course, was oral. Thereafter, the petitioners intimated the concerned revenue authorities to mutate the properties fell to their respective shares in their names in the revenue records. Acting upon the same, the revenue authorities mutated their names in all the concerned records in the year 1983 itself. Ever since the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands.
2. While so, in October, 1998 the 1st respondent herein informed them that the said land is also required for the purpose of construction of a percolation tank in the village and took possession of the same assuring that necessary land acquisition proceedings would be initiated and compensation paid in due course. However, no steps were taken thereafter by the respondents for payment of compensation. Hence, they filed the present Writ Petition.
3. The Writ Petition was admitted on 29-12-1998. While admitting the Writ Petition, this Court also granted interim orders in WPMP No.43601/98 directing the respondents not to make any constructions in the aforesaid lands of the petitioners without following the procedure provided under law. The petitioners claim that subsequently they again took possession of the lands and they are in their possession and enjoyment now.
4. Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Senior Counmsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that the respondents have no authority under law to acquire or utilize the petitioners' lands without following the procedure established under law and, therefore, necessary direction has to be issued to the respondents not to interfere with their possession of the lands in question or otherwise utilize them except in accordance with law.
Opposing the aforesaid submission of the petitioners' counsel, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Sri M. Mohan Reddy, father of petitioners 1 and 2 herein, gave consent on 18-1-1994 for construction of percolation tank without claiming any compensation; and, therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to raise any objection or to claim compensation.
5. I have perused the consent letter, which was stated to have been given by Sri M.Mohan Reddy. The said letter did not specify any specific extent of the land in Survey Nos.207 and 208 of Sripathipalli village. Further, Sri M.Mohan Reddy was not the owner of the entire property in those Survey Numbers. As already noted above, the property, once upon a time, was the joint family property of Sri M.Mohana Reddy and Sri M.Narayana Reddy and fell to the shares of their sons, the petitioners herein, in the year 1983, in the family partition. Their names were mutated long back, i.e., in the year 1983 itself, in the revenue records. The counsel for the petitioners filed Xerox copies of the relevant entries, including the pattadar passbooks. He also produced the original records before me at the time of hearing.
6. A perusal of those records would clearly show that the petitioners are in possession of the lands in question. Further, the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer, who was impleaded as the 3rd respondent in this Writ Petition, filed a counter affidavit categorically stating thus:
"... The total extent of both the Survey numbers is Ac.31.04, out of which an extent of Ac.6.00 sold out to Jitteboina Muthaiah. The balance of Ac.25.04 stands in the name of the petitioner and their joint family. The details of lands are furnished below:
Sl.No Extent Classifica- Name of the Name of the Extent
tion pattadar enjoyer under
enjoyment
Ac.gts.
207/A 9-09 Dry Minkuri Mohan Reddy M. Ramakrishna 9-09
Reddy
207/B 9-09 Dry Minkuri Narayana M. Ramachandra 9-09
Reddy Reddy
208/1 6-13 Dry Minkuri Mohan Reddy M. Narasimha 3-13
Reddy,
M. Ramachandra 3-00
Reddy
208/2 6-13 Dry Minkuri Narayana M. Ramachandra 0-13
Reddy Reddy
Jitteboina 5-00
Muthaiah
Jitteboina 1-00
Mallaiah
It is also submitted that no partition agreement has been received in this office from the joint family of the petitioners. The name of the enjoyers has been recorded as per the factual position on the ground. The petitioners and their joint family are the rightful owners and possessors of the land as detailed above".
7. From the aforesaid counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent-MRO it is clear that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the said land since long. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that Sri M.Mohan Reddy, who is the father of petitioners 1 and 2, is entitled to give a consent letter for acquisition of the entire land in Survey Nos.207 and 208 without claiming any compensation. Therefore, the so called consent given by Sri Mohan Reddy, will not bind the petitioners. It may be noted here that Section 6 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 create a statutory presumption about the correctness of the entries in record of rights. As already noted, the petitioners' names were entered in the said record of rights by the revenue authorities. Therefore, it is not open to the Government now to contend that the petitioners are not the owners of the land.
8. It may be noted here that right to property is now guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution. However, that right is subject to the power of eminent domain. But, exercise of that power is again circumscribed by the Statute i.e., the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which has created several procedural safeguards. Therefore, the respondents cannot deprive the petitioners of their property without following the procedure established under law.
9. In the aforementioned circumstances, there shall be a direction directing the respondents not to interfere or otherwise utilize the petitioners' lands in Survey Nos.207 and 208 of Sripathipalli village, Warangal District, in any manner, except in accordance with the procedure established under law.
10. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.