Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Molabanti Chinnammai vs District Collector, Nellore And Others on 13 November, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(6)ALD678, 1998(6)ALT266, 1999 A I H C 1238, (1998) 6 ANDHLD 678, (1998) 6 ANDH LT 266, (1998) 2 LS 747
ORDER
1. The petitioner, in the writ petition, has sought for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from Ac.15.76 cents of dry land in PattaNo.476 in Survey No.356/1 of Podalakuru village and Mandal, Nellore District belonging to the 4th respondent-temple in respect of which the petitioner is a statutory tenant as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violative of provisions of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act and pass appropriate consequential order as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. In response to Rule Nisi the respondents have filed counter.
3. The facts stated by the petitioner in the affidavit in brief be stated thus: The father-in-law of the petitioner, namely, Sri Molabanti Subba Rao was the statutory tenant of the subject land; the tenancy commenced around the year 1972-73 and he was paying rent at the rate of R.1,000/- per annum; originally the subject land was not fit for cultivation and after putting his labour he levelled the land and made it fit for cultivation, and he died in the year 1984; after the death of Mohbanti Subba Rao, his widow, Molabanti Subbamma, succeeded to his interest and she also died in the year 1988; after the death of Smt. Molabanti Subbamma, the petitioner has been in actual possession and cultivation of the subject land till the writ petition was filed paying regularly rents to the temple management; the petitioner has produced the rent receipts. When the matte stood thus, she came to know that the District Collector, Ncllore-first respondent herein passed an order directing the respondents 2 and 3 to take over possession of the land from the petitioner and allot the same to the land-less poor persons. So alleging the writ petition was filed in this Court on 8-9-1997. The Court on the same day, issued Rule Nisi and passed interim direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land.
4. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that in pursuance of the policy decision taken by the Government to evict the encroachers from the road margins, the encroachers in Podalakuru, headquarter of the Mandal, were evicted between 30-8-1997 and 2-9-1997, and the illegal constructions made by them were also demolished rendering those evictees shelterless; the District Collector, Nellore was camping at Podalakuru on 3-9-1997 and the shelterless oustees made an appeal to him to provide alternative house-sites to them, and accordingly the District Collector thought of allotting house-sites in the subject land, and he consulted the Endowments officials in that regard, and having regard to the urgency of the matter, he instructed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Podalakur to provide shelter to the shelterless oustees in the subject land locally called "Vinayaka Manyam"; house site pattas were distributed to the oustees on 5-9-1997 pending acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, in a function organised on 5-9-1997 presided over by Local MLA, Rapur. The respondents dispute the claim of the petitioner that she is the statutory tenant, and that they claim that even father-in-law of the petitioner did not seek renewal of the lease after the term of the original lease was over as required under Section 10(2) and (3) of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 from the Endowments Department, and, therefore, neither his widow nor the petitioner have any legal right to be in possession of the subject land. However, it is significant to note that the respondents do not dispute the fact that till the impugned action was taken, the petitioner and her mother-in-law and the father-in-law, in succession, have been in actual possession and personal cultivation of the subject land paying rents to the temple administration. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3 also makes it clear that the subject land is not temple land and that is why it is stated in the counter that possession of the land was taken over for distribution to the shelterless oustees pending acquisition of the subject land. It is also significant to note that the claim of the petitioner is not contested by the temple administration by filing any counter.
5. Even accepting all that stated in the counter-affidavit as correct, even then, the action of the revenue officials should be held to be ex-fade illegal, highhanded and in total violation of public law. The subject land is the land of the temple. The revenue authorities of the State Government have absolutely no right to take over possession of the land ousting the occupier or the tenant of such land without recourse to law and without acquiring the same. It is well settled and repeatedly reiterated by the Courts that whenever public authorities do something adverse to the interest of persons or citizens, their action should be traceable to an authority granted by the Constitution or other public law enactment. The District Collector, I should say that in the present case, acted as a despot without bothering himself about public law requirement, and directed his subordinates to take over the land pending acquisition of the land. The learned Government Pleader who appeared for the revenue authorities was not in a position to trace the authority of the District Collector or his subordinates to take over the possession of the land and issue pattas to the alleged shelterless oustees. The petitioner has produced rent receipts issued by the temple administration. The documents placed before the Court clearly demonstrate that as on the date of impugned action, the petitioner was in lawful possession and cultivation of the land. The District Collector took adverse action against the petitioner in dispossessing her from the land and allotting the same land to the alleged shelterless oustees in violation of Articles, 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and in utter violation of principles of natural justice, fair play in action as well as tenancy laws. If the lease granted to the father-in-law of the petitioner and continued lease by the widow of the original lessee is illegal or irregular by virtue of any provisions of tenancy laws, it is for the temple administration to take appropriate action to terminate the tenancy, and it is not for the District Collector to put forth such untenable plea and act like a despot in taking over the possession of the subject land.
6. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, and also for the reasons stated by me in WP No.7473 of 1994 dated 18-1-1996 which decision was subject matter of further judicial review by the Supreme Court and which is upheld by the Supreme Court, I allow the writ petition with exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The cost shall be paid to the petitioner by the respondents 1 to 3 within a period of two weeks from today. A direction shall issue to the respondents 1 to 3 to handover vacant possession of the subject land to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The respondents 1 to 3 are further directed not to interfere or meddle with the peaceful possession of the subject land of the petitioner without recourse to law and without initiating appropriate proceedings to acquire the subject land either under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or any other enabling Statute.