Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mogal Hussain, vs The State Of A.P. Rep By Its Secretary, on 16 December, 2019
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
WRIT PETITION No.4475 of 2010
ORDER:-
This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking verbatim the following relief:
"....to pass orders particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in not carrying out the corrections in the revenue records as per the patta granted vide DK No.473/96 and the action of the 3rd respondent in threatening to remove the bunk in the DKT land as arbitrary, illegal, misconceived and violative of Art 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to make the corresponding corrections in the revenue records in respect of Patta No.82 of Vinukonda and grant...."
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner; of the learned Government Pleader for Assignments appearing for respondents 1 and 2; and, of Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent- Municipality. The 4th respondent has not entered appearance.
The case of the petitioner as per the pleadings and submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
'The petitioner's grandfather, having got into possession of the subject property about 80-90 years ago, raised a hut therein. Subsequently, the petitioner's father succeeded to the said property. On 30.05.1987, DKT Patta vide patta No.473/96 was granted to the petitioner. When there was a threat of forceful dispossession, the 2 MSRM,J W.P.No.4475 of 2010 petitioner filed O.S.No.79 of 2007 for permanent injunction on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda. The said suit was dismissed, on 18.01.2010, as the Court noted that there are corrections in the patta document. Therefore, on 05.02.2010, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent to make necessary corrections in the record and also the patta document. Since the representation is not considered and disposed of, the present writ petition is filed.' On 25.02.2010, this Court, in WPMP No.5780 of 2010, granted an interim direction to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house and pan shop of the petitioner, which is the subject property.
Per contra, the case of the 4th respondent as per the submissions in the counter and the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, in brief, is as follows:
'The petitioner encroached upon a portion of the site at galli bazaar, situated on the Southern side of the SST Bus Stand side. All the allegations to the contra are false. No DKT patta was granted to the petitioner as per the DKT register relating to fasali 1396 (1987). A patta in DKT No.473/96 was issued in favour of one Sayyad Hussain, S/o Hussain, Vinukonda, in respect of plot No.94-B in Sy.Nos.345/2, 365/1 and 391/A1 and possession of Ac.0.01 cents was also delivered to him. The petitioner altered the patta issued in favour of said Sayyad Hussain by deleting the patta holder's name and incorporated 3 MSRM,J W.P.No.4475 of 2010 his name and also the subject plot number and filed the suit to make an illegal gain. As the petitioner altered not only the name of the original patta holder but also the plot number in the patta granted to the original patta holder, the suit of the petitioner was dismissed by the competent civil Court. As the petitioner resorted to manipulation of the patta granted to Sayyad Hussain, any consideration of his request for correction of the revenue records and patta does not arise. Since he made an encroachment and blocked the galli bazaar and erected a bunk completely blocking the galli situated on the Southern side of SST bus stand side and as the said encroachment is causing hindrance to the passers by, the said encroachment is liable for removal. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.' On filing of the counter by the 4th respondent along with WVMP No.2187 of 2011, this Court, having heard the submissions of both sides, allowed the WVMP and vacated interim direction earlier granted, on 25.02.2010.
In this backdrop of facts and submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is a physically handicapped person and is admittedly in possession of the subject property and is running a pan bunk there and is eking out his livelihood, his interest may be protected by directing the respondents not to evict him from the subject property, without following the due procedure established by law.4
MSRM,J W.P.No.4475 of 2010 However, learned Government Pleader, in reply, would submit that after the vacate MP was allowed, the petitioner is evicted from the subject property and he is not in possession of the property.
In further reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a direction may be given to the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the subject property, in the event, he is continuing in possession of the same.
Having regard to the facts & submissions and as this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the respondents are directed not to evict the petitioner from the subject property, without following the due procedure established by law, in the event he is continuing in possession of the same as on today.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J Date: 17.12.2019 Pab