Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Golla Lakshmi Devi, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 27 July, 2021
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.19273 OF 2020
ORDER:-
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
".......to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the illegal action of the respondents No.3 to 4 in interfering and dispossessing petitioner peaceful possession and enjoyment by laying house site pattas in respect of petitioner land in Sy.No.507/A3 an extent of Ac 3.30 cents but while mutating petitioner name in Online Adangal only an extent of Ac 2.71 cents and changed Sy.No.507/A situated at Rudravaram Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District without following the procedure under Land Acquisition Act and paying compensation, which is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to the Act and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents herein not to dispossess and distribute the house site pattas to the beneficiaries under Navarathnalu Pedalandariki Illu Housing Scheme in respect of petitioner land in Sy.No.507/A3 an extent of Ac 3.30 cents, but while mutating petitioner name in Online Adangal only an extent of Ac
2.71 cents and changed Sy No.507/A situated at Rudravaram Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District, further direct the respondents herein to pay the compensation Rs.18,00,000/- per acre on par with others as otherwise petitioner and her family will suffer serious loss and grate hardship and pass such other order or orders ....."
2. The petitioner is Golla Lakshmi Devi. Her specific case is that, herself and her family members have been in possession and enjoyment of Government Land in Sy.No.507/A to an extent of Ac 0.71 cents and land in Sy No.507/A3 an extent of Ac 3.30 cents, total Ac 4.01 cents, besides some other land since two decades. They have been cultivating the said land and eking out their livelihood. The parents of this petitioner performed her marriage and partitioned the above land and allotted to her, consequently, necessary entries were made in pattadar passbooks 2 in Khata No.626. Subsequent to her marriage in the year 2016, with one Kistappa, Aluru Mandal, but due to matrimonial disputes, she is living separately and maintaining herself, her daughter with the income earned by cultivating the said land.
The 3rd respondent initiated Land acquisition proceedings to provide house site pattas under "NAVARATHNALU PEDALANDARIKI ILLU" scheme by proceedings R.Dis.No.G2/(H.S)/766/2020, dated 25.06.2020, which the petitioner was obtained under Right to Information Act (RTI) on 21.09.2020. The 3rd respondent did not issue any notice to this petitioner and did not pay compensation though she is eligible in terms of the Land Acquisition proceedings.
Due to political influence, the respondents No.2 to 4 mutated some other persons names for the land in Sy No.507/A3 and mutated the name of the petitioner in Online Adangal only for an extent of Ac 2.71 cents and changed Survey Number as Sy.No.507/A situated at Rudravaram Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District. Immediately the petitioner approached the respondents No.3 and 4, several times, but they did not attend her grievance to pay compensation following due process of law. But the local political leaders influencing the respondents No.2 to 4 mutated their names for the land in Sy No.507/A3 so as to enable those persons to claim compensation. Thus, the respondents No.3 and 4 paying compensation to the ineligible persons, illegally and arbitrarily.
The petitioner asserted that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy No.507/A3 and while mutating her name in the Online Adangal, the 4th respondent officials committed 3 mistake and wrongly entered the extent as Ac 2.71 cents and changed Sy No.507/A, situated in Rudravaram village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool district. Thereupon, she made an application through Online on 10.09.2018 for correction of the details of lands substituting Sy.No.507/A and to amend the details of land in Survey Number based on pattadar passbook and title deed with Khata No.626. But the respondents did not take any action so far and trying to interfere and dispossess this petitioner without paying any compensation.
The petitioner is receiving the benefits under "Rythu Bharosa Scheme" from the State Government and also the Central Government scheme under "Pradhan Mantri Kisan Yojana", obtained crop loan from Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank twice, and to that effect, the petitioner placed on record the bank statements dated 24.9.2020.
The petitioner's neighbouring land owners made several representations to the respondents No.3 and 4 to pay compensation to their lands, more particularly, by representation, dated 30.09.2020. The 4th respondent issued notice dated 3.10.2020 to the petitioner and others to attend enquiry to be held on 08.10.2020 at 11.00 a.m. in the office and recorded their statements. But to the utter surprise, for the first time, the 4th respondent visited the land on 10.10.2020 and demanded her to vacate the land as the said land was allotted for house sites under the scheme of "Navarathnalu-Pedalandariki Illu". Thus, the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner from Ac 3.30 cents in Sy No. 507/A3 depriving this petitioner claiming compensation for the land. Thus, the act of the respondents No.3 4 and 4 is illegal, arbitrary, principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and requesting to issue a direction as stated supra.
3. The respondent No.4 filed counter denying material allegations inter alia contending that an extent of 376.04 Acs., in Sy.No.507/A of Rudravaram Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool district was acquired for issuing house site pattas to eligible beneficiaries of Kurnool Municipal Corporation limit under "Navarathnalu Pedalandariki Illu" and that the land losers details have been prepared after conducting filed enquiry and got published vide its office Rc.B.375/2020, dated 27.05.2020. The petitioner claimed compensation by producing manual pattadar passbooks for the land in an extent of Ac 3.30 cents issued for the land in Sy.No.507-A3 of Rudravaram Village vide Khata No.626. As per Online Adangal/Manual 1-B Register, the details of the land in Sy No.507/A of Rudravaram Village of Kurnool Rural Mandal is detailed as under:
Sl.No. 1B Name of the As per 1-B As per Online
Khata Pattadar Register Adangal
No. Sy.No. Extent Sy.No. Extent
(in Acs) (in Acs)
1. 626 G.Lakshmi Devi, 507-A 0.71 507-A 2.71
D/o G.Sivaiah 507-A3 3.30
4. It is also contended that, on verification of manual 1-B Register of Rudravaram Village, Kurnool Rural, entry has been made by the then Tahsildar, Kurnool, certifying that, the Sy.No.507-A3, an extent of Ac 3.30 cents, as bogus entry. It is also ascertained that 1-B Khata No.626 is originally assigned land to the following pattadar. Details as follows:
5
Sl.No. 1B Khata Name of the Sy.No. Extent
No. Pattadar (in Acs.)
1.50
1 626 A.Sanjeeva Reddy 588/B rounded off
S/o Veeranna and noted as
0.75
5. 1-B Khata No.626 assigned to one pattadar shall not be transferred to another pattadar. As per rules, 1B Register assigned to one pattadar, whereas, in the present case, 1B Register Khata assigned to one pattadar has been rounded off and assigned to another pattadar which is irregular. With regard to payment of compensation to the petitioner for the land inf an extent of Ac 0.59 cents in Sy No.507-A of Rudravaram Village, Kurnool Mandal, has been paid to the petitioner. Hence, the contention of this petitioner that while mutating her name in Online Adangal, the Sy No.507-A3 has been changed as Sy No.507-A and extent of Ac 3.30 cents has been changed into Ac 2.71 cents and also not paid any compensation to the petitioner is false and baseless.
6. As per Revenue Records of Rudravaram Village, Kurnool Mandal i.e., manual 1-B Register, it is evident that old Khata No.626 was assigned to the petitioner for the land to an extent of Ac 0.71 cents in Sy.No.507/A of Rudravaram Village. Subsequently, bogus entry was made and carried out in the manual 1-B register to an extent of Ac 3.30 cents in Sy No.507/A3 admeasuring to an extent of Ac 4.01 cents and the name of this petitioner was included in Online Adangal records for the land against Sy.No.507-A for an extent of Ac 2.71 cents without following due procedure on 04.12.2015. As per Survey report, the petitioner is in enjoyment of land of an extent of Ac 0.71 cents in Sy No.507/A only. Thus, it is evident from the pattadar passbooks 6 of the petitioner, bogus entries have bene carried out in pattadar passbooks of this petitioner.
7. A public notice has been issued vide office Rc.B/375/2020, dated 27.05.2020 calling for objections, if any, for the land to be resumed in Sy No.507/A etc., in the total extent of Ac 376.04 of Rudravaram Village of Kurnool Rural Mandal, and hence, the contention of the petitioner that she is in enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac 3.30 cents in Sy No.507/A of Rudravaram village of Kurnool Rural Mandal and also resuming the land for issuing house site pattas to the eligible beneficiaries, without following due procedure, is false and baseless.
8. A Committee was constituted for identification of the land losers consisting Tahsildar, Kallur Mandal and Mandal Surveyor, Kurnool Mandal, and after receipt of enjoyment report, submitted by the Mandal Surveyor, Kurnool rural and after conducting Grama Sabhas, the land losers were identified and therefore, the petitioner is the only land loser for an extent of Ac.0.71 cents in Sy No.507/A and not entitled to claim compensation for any other extent.
9. On receipt of representation of this petitioner for payment of compensation, for acquiring the land of her extent and also her mother for the land in Sy No.507/A3 admeasuring to an extent of Ac 8.00 of Rudravaram Village, Kurnool Rural Mandal , a notice was issued to Sri A.Hanumantha Reddy, S/o Purushotham Reddy and Smt A.Prameelamma, W/o Purushotham Reddy vide office Rc.B.375/2020, dated 03.10.2020 with a direction to attend before the Tahsildar, Kurnool Rural Mandal along with relevant records 7 on 8.10.2020 at 11.00 a.m. and during enquiry the statement of this petitioner and other neighbouring land owners were recorded and found that the entries were bogus, and thereby, issued endorsement dated 21.09.2020 and consequently the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in the present petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition in limini.
10. During hearing Sri Challa Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to various documents, more particularly, pattadar pass book of this petitioner Golla Lakshmi Devi bearing Patta No.626, application submitted for rectification of entries in the revenue records, dated 10.9.2018 through Mee seva. The certificate issued by Southern Power Distribution Company of AP Limited and Land Records Computerized Patta Adangal/Pahani copy for the Fasli No.1429 and Form-1B Namoona (ROR), representation made by this petitioner and the notice dated 03.10.2020 for conducting enquiry and the endorsement datec 21.09.2020 issued by the Respondent No.4 to show that this petitioner is the owner of the land of an extent of Ac 3.30 cents in Sy No.507/A. But manipulating the records, the respondent No.4 allegedly denied the payment of compensation to her, thereby trying to take forcible possession of the land from this petitioner without conducting proper enquiry. Hence, the action of the respondent No.4 is against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and requested to issue a direction as claimed in the writ petition.
11. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently contended that the entries in pattadar passbook are 8 manipulated and substituted certain entries in the land record and photostat copy of pattadar passbook bearing Patta No.626 is placed on record to show that there is manipulation in the pattadar passbook issued in favour of this petitioner and the said manipulation also appearing in Form 1B-Namoona (ROR). Originally, the name of A.Sanjeev Reddy S/o Veeranna was incorporated as against the land in Patta No.626 and it was strike off and later mutated the name of Golla Lakshmi Devi, D/o G.Sivaiah, the petitioner herein on 03.7.2018 as against the land in Patta No.626 as if it was assigned by the Government, granting D-Form patta. Thus, it is sufficient to conclude that this petitioner with the collusion of Tahsildar manipulated the record to claim compensation.
12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has also placed on record several documents to establish that the property was acquired and fixed compensation to land holders @ 18 lakhs per acre. Thus, the respondents are following procedure in accordance with law and that this petitioner is not entitled to claim any compensation except the compensation already paid to her for the land in Sy No.507-A, and finally, he requested to dismiss the writ petition.
13. The specific claim of the petitioner is that she own Ac 3.30 cents of land in Sy No.507/A3 and the same was mutated as appeared in the pattadar passbook and title deeds including Form- 1B (ROR). To substantiate her claim, she placed on record pattadar passbook with Patta No.626. As per entries therein, the petitioner is the owner of an extent of Ac.0.71 cents of (Metta) dry land in Sy No.507/A and Ac 3.30 cents in Sy No.507/A3. The 9 nature of ownership in Col No.6 of pattadar passbook, it is shown as 'owner'. If pattadar pass book is accepted, the petitioner is the owner of the property to an extent of Ac 0.71 cents and Ac 3.30 cents in two different Sy Nos. as mentioned above. As the Sy No.507/A3 was mentioned in pattadar passbook issued to this petitioner long ago, she found that the survey number was wrongly mentioned as against extent of Ac 3.30 cents instead of mentioning Sy.No.507/A3, she made an application through Mee seva for correction of entries in Adangal pahani. The photostat copy of receipt obtained through Meeseva is placed on record with a request to correct the Adangal and Form-1B (ROR) by paying requisite amount. But no action was taken thereon. The petitioner also placed on record Adangal patta No.626 for Fasli 1429 issued on 24.09.2019 in Sl.No.4 for Khata No.626 in Col No.11 and the name of this petitioner G.Lakshmi Devi was mentioned as owner and possessor in Col.No.12 and 13 as enjoyer for an extent of Ac 2.71 cents (as enjoyer) in Sy No.507/A. Similarly, in Land Records Computerized Patta Adangal/Pahani, dated 30.06.2020, the petitioner name is appearing in Col No.2 as pattadar with Khata No.626 vide Col No.4, in Sy No.507/A, extent is Ac 2.7100 cents, and the nature of acquisition is mentioned as D.Patta. The petitioner placed on record the statement of account with Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank bearing Account No.91080358645. She obtained loan from the bank twice. But, the documents did not disclose the extent of land she possessed except obtaining loan, therefore, there is any amount of controversy between the entries in pattadar passbook she produced and the entries in Form-1B (ROR) register Adangal No.3 10 for the Fasli 1429. It is evident from pattadar passbook that the petitioner own and possessed land of an extent of Ac 0.71 cents in Sy No.507/A and Ac 3.30 cents in Sy No.507/A3 of Rudravaram village, but whereas, Adangal discloses that, she own an extent of Ac 2.71 cents in Sy No.507/A with Khata No.626. Similar is the case in Form 1-B (ROR) register. The petitioner made a representation to RDO dated 30.09.2020 disclosing that she obtained revenue record as if she is in possession of land in Sy No.507/A3. Based on such record, she requested to pay compensation for the land own and occupied. On the basis of representation, the 4th respondent issued notice 03.10.2020 in RC.B.375/2020, calling upon the petitioner and other neighbouring land owners to appear in the office of 4th respondent on 8.10.2020 at 11.00 a.m., along with the records pertaining to land in Sy No.507/A3 as the claim of this petitioner is limited to the land in Sy No.507/A and 507/A3. Accordingly, they appeared. Thereupon, the 4th respondent issued an endorsement dated 21.9.2020 in RCB.605/2020 stating that the land is acquired for granting pattas to landless poor under "Navarathnalu Pedalandariki Illu" scheme in terms of orders passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Kurnool in R.Dis.No.G2(H.S)/766/2020, dated 25.06.2020, 29.06.2020, 30.06.2020, 01.07.2020, 07.08.2020 and 00.08.2020.
14. The specific contention of the 4th respondent is that Adangal Form 1-B (ROR) is manipulated conveniently allotted khata No.626 to two persons though not permissible under Rules and demonstrated how the petitioner's name was mutated in the revenue record by making entries falsely. Mostly relying on 11 pattadar passbook produced by this petitioner bearing patta No.626 where she is described as owner of the land in Sy No.507/A to an extent of Ac 0.71 cents and Sy.No.507/A3 to an extent of Ac 3.30 cents and the nature of acquisition is mentioned as D.patta. But in Form 1-B Namoona (ROR), there are corrections in the Account number, pattadar name etc., Initially khata No.626 was allotted to A. Sanjeev Reddy, S/o Veeranna for the land in Sy No.588/B of an extent of Ac 1.50 cents rounded off and noted as 0.75. But later, as per the endorsement in Col Nos.9 and 10, 626/289 was included in Khata 1515, below the name of Sanjeev Reddy, against Khata No.626. The name of G.Lakshmi Devi was mentioned and the land in her possession is shown as Ac 0.71 cents dry land in Sy No.507/A and Ac 3.30 cents in Sy No.507/A3. But the name of A.Sanjeev Reddy and other details mentioned against his name were striken off and initialed by somebody.
15. Later, the Tahsildar reviewed the entry relating to Sy.No.507/A3 of an extent of Ac 3.30 cents is certified as bogus entry and put the initial on 3.7.2018 by him. Thus it is not known whether the Tahsildar afforded opportunity before certifying that the entry as bogus entry in the revenue record or not.
16. As per Form 1B Namoona (ROR), dated 02.12.2020, G. Lakshmi Devi, the petitioner herein own an extent of Ac 2.71 cents in Sy No.507-A with Khata No.626. Therefore, there is any amount of discrepancy in the entries in revenue records maintained by the Respondent No.4 and in the documents produced by the petitioner, in fact, it is not her case at any cost that she own Ac 3.30 cents in Sy.No.507/A3 and her claim is that she own an extent of Ac.2.71 cents in Sy No.507/A from the beginning. But 12 the very document produced by her is not supporting her plea raised in the writ petition.
17. On the other hand, the entry made by Tahsildar certifying that the entry in Adangal against the name of this petitioner relating to Ac 3.30 cents in Sy No.507/A3 and khata No.626 is bogus. But no piece of evidence is produced about conduct of enquiry by the then Tahsildar before making such certification. However, it is not her case from the beginning that she own any land in Sy No.507/A3, more particularly, an extent of Ac 3.30 cents. Even assuming for a moment that she is not entitled to claim any compensation to any land in Sy No.507/A3 for an extent of Ac 3.30 cents, since it is a bogus, still she is entitled to claim compensation for the land she own and possessed in Sy No.507/A as per the Adangal copy produced by the respondents dated 02.12.2020 where her claim is mentioned in the land in Sy No.507/A with Khata No.626 for extent of Ac 2.71 cents and paying Rs.2.20 as cist for the entire land. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation for an extent of Ac 2.71 cents as appearing in the Form 1B Namoona (ROR) produced by the respondent No.4 itself, and as per the Pattadar passbook, Adangal produced by the respondents duly certified by Tahsildar.
18. The beneficiaries list also referred to G.Sivaiah for allotment of house sites. The list is also placed on record along with counter. None of the documents would disclose that the petitioner own land in an extent of Ac.3.30 cents in Sy No.507/A3. In fact, it is not her case at any time, and on the other hand, her consistent case is that she own of an extent of Ac 2.71 cents of land in Sy No.507/A, and the same is supported by Form 1B (ROR) 13 produced by the respondent No.4 along with the counter. Therefore, she is allegedly entitled to claim compensation for an extent of Ac 2.71 cents, if the entire land of this petitioner is acquired for the purpose of allotment of house site under the scheme of "Navarathnalu Pedalandariki Illu" scheme.
19. But the respondent No.4, in para-5 of the counter, contended that passbook issued to the petitioner for the land in an extent of Ac 0.71 cents in Sy No.507/A, as per manual 1-B Register, maintained by this office, subsequently, bogus entry was made and carried out in the manual Form 1-B Register for an extent of Ac 3.30 cents in Sy No.507/A3 admeasuring total extent of Ac 4.01 cents, and the petitioner's name was included in the Online record for the land against Sy.No.507-A for an extent of Ac 2.71 cents without following due procedure on 04.12.2015 and that she is only in enjoyment of an extent of Ac 0.59 cents in Sy No.507/A and not in enjoyment of extent of Ac 3.30 cents in Sy No.507/A3 in view of bogus entry, thereby, she is entitled to claim compensation for an extent of Ac. 0.71 cents for the land in Sy No.507/A. When the respondent No.4 himself produced Form 1B (ROR) Adangal to establish that the petitioner is in enjoyment of an extent of Ac 2.71 cents in Sy No.507/A vide Khata No.626, the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation for the land she own and occupied. But the respondent No.4 did not agree to pay compensation for the land she own and possessed as per form 1B Adanagal. No explanation was offered for rectifying the entries in Form 1B till date. If really, the entries are bogus, the respondent No.4 would have conduct necessary enquiry affording an opportunity to this petitioner for rectifying the entries in the 14 revenue records, but no such enquiry was conducted and no report is placed on record, to substantiate the contention of this petitioner that bogus entry was made in Form 1B Adangal in Khata No.626 for the land in an extent of Sy.No.507/A and Sy.No. 507/A3.
20. Therefore there are various disputed questions of facts and such disputed questions cannot be decided by this Court. It is very difficult for this Court to decide such disputed questions of facts regarding land own and possessed, more particularly, the land own and possessed by G.Lakshmi Devi, the petitioner herein, to claim compensation over the land in her possession. Even the petitioner also applied through Mee seva on 10.9.2018 with application No.TAADLCO11805209626 for correction of all entries in the revenue records, in Adangal Form 1B Namoona (ROR) and paid requisite fee for such rectification of the errors, but so far, no order has been passed. Even after conducting necessary enquiry, after serving notice on the petitioner and other owners dated 3.10.2020 in RCB 375/2020, no order was passed either accepting or denying the claim of this petitioner though a detailed enquiry was conducted. Therefore it is appropriate to direct the respondent No.4 to conduct necessary enquiry for rectification of the errors in Adangal and 1B register as requested by this petitioner based on the application made through Mee seva dated 10.09.2018 with application No.ADLCO11805209626 strictly adhering the procedure prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh (Rights in Land) and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (for short "the Act") by issuing Form VIII Rule 19(1) of A.P. (Rights in Land) and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971. So also the 15 enquiry on the claim of this petitioner in view of notice issued to this petitioner and other owners dated 03.10.2020 in RCB 375/2020 and pass appropriate orders.
21. As discussed above, in view of the disputed questions of facts, it is difficult to accept the contention of either of the parties to the writ petition and issue a direction as claimed by this petitioner. But I find that it is appropriate to direct the respondent No.4 to conduct necessary enquiry as stated above, and till passing appropriate orders, strictly by adhering the procedure contemplated under the Act for correction of entries in the revenue records and conduct enquiry on the application made by this petitioner in pursuance of the notice, dated 03.10.2020, within one (01) month and pass appropriate orders on the claim of this petitioner. Till passing such orders, the respondent No.4 is directed not to dispossess this petitioner from the subject land.
22. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date : 27 -07-2021 Gvl 16 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.19273 OF 2020 Date : 27 .07.2021 Gvl