Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Inturi Raja Gopal vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 January, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R.Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.338 of 2023
Between:
State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Assignment-II) Department,
A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravati, Guntur District, and 3 others.
...Appellants
Versus
G.V.V. Satyanarayana,
S/o. Late Thammi Raju,
R/o. MIG-9, Green Park Colony,
Near Port Stadium, Visakhapatnam.
...Respondents
Counsel for Appellants : G.P. for Assignment
Counsel for respondent : Sri V.V. Satish
Dt.: 26.12.2023
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the appellants and Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
HCJ & RRR, J 2 W.A.No.338 of 2023
2. The father of the respondent herein had been assigned an extent of Ac.4.93 cents of land, in Sy.No.134/1 of Paradesipalem Village, Visakhapatnam, vide D.R. file bearing No.116/71 dated 23.06.1970. The respondent inherited the said property after the demise of his father on 13.02.2015. The respondent is said to have submitted a representation to the Government contending that the afore said property is wrongly shown in the prohibited list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and sought deletion of the property from the prohibited list. It appears that there were some controversies as to whether the land was assigned to the father of the respondent, on the ground that he was a landless poor person or on the ground that he was an ex-serviceman. In any event, the Government, after an enquiry in this regard, had issued Memo No.REV/21021/92/2017-ASSG.II-1, dated 01.05.2018, directing deletion of the property from the list of prohibitory properties, on the ground that the land was allotted to the father of the respondent as an ex-serviceman.
3. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, on receipt of the said Memo, sought a review of the order dated 01.05.2018 on various grounds. This application for review was rejected, vide Memo No.REV/21021/92/2017-ASSG.II-1, dated 31.10.2018.
HCJ & RRR, J 3 W.A.No.338 of 2023
4. The property of the respondent was not removed, from the prohibitory list, despite rejection of the review sought by the District Collector. The respondent again represented to the Government about the said refusal to remove the property from the prohibitory list and the Government issued Memo dated 12.12.2018, directing the Commissioner and Inspector General, Stamps and Registration,, to implement the orders dated 01.05.2018 for deletion of the subject land.
5. As the land was not being deleted even after the Memo dated 12.12.2018, the respondent approached this Court by way of W.P.No.13329 of 2021.
6. The District Collector filed a counter affidavit stating that the land was assigned to the father of the respondent but it was not assigned on the ground that he was an ex-serviceman and it was assigned by treating the father of the respondent as a landless poor person. The counter affidavit further stated that the subject land was handed over to the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA), as per the proceedings dated 09.12.2004, under delivery receipt No.1/2005/Sp.R.I., dated 22.01.2005, by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal. The counter also stated that a kutcha road had been formed in the land HCJ & RRR, J 4 W.A.No.338 of 2023 and a caution board has also been erected by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, in this regard.
7. The District Collector also contended, in the counter affidavit, that the respondent had filed a writ petition bearing W.P.No.15332 of 2007 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, challenging the dispossession sought to be carried out against the respondent and his father. This writ petition was disposed of, on 21.11.2012, with a direction to the Principal Secretary to the Government, to consider and pass appropriate orders in the matter in relation to the recommendations of the District Collector dated 16.01.2011. It is contended that in that view of the matter, the question of removing the land from the prohibitory list would not arise, as the respondent would not have title or possession over the said land. Thereafter, the District Collector is said to have issued proceedings, dated 22.03.2018 rejecting the application for a No Objection Certificate.
8. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering the rival submissions, by order dated 22.07.2022, had allowed the writ petition with exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/- against the respondents 1 to 4 therein and with a further direction to delete the subject property from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 forthwith, and to HCJ & RRR, J 5 W.A.No.338 of 2023 receive and register the documents submitted by the respondent herein.
9. The learned Government Pleader for Assignment, would make the following submissions:
a) The learned Judge ought to have taken into account the fact that the land admeasuring Ac.4.93 cents had already been taken over by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority and an extent of Ac.1.07 cents was used for the purpose of laying an 80 feet road through Sy.No.134/1 of Paradesipalem Village.
Further, the remaining Ac.3.86 cents is also in the possession of Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority. However, these facts were not taken into account by the learned Single Judge.
b) The learned Single Judge had passed the orders in the writ petition, taking into account the above Memo issued by the Government for deletion of the property from the prohibitory list and implementation of the said order without taking into account the further Memo No.REV/21021/92/2017-ASSG.II-1, dated 31.08.2021 wherein the earlier Memos were kept in abeyance.
c) The objections filed by the District Collector, dated 19.06.2018, against the initial order in Memo dated 01.05.2018 would show that the claim of the respondent, through his late father, is not sufficient to accept the ownership of the respondent HCJ & RRR, J 6 W.A.No.338 of 2023 over the land and in any event the possession of the land was out of the hands of the respondent.
10. Learned Government Pleader would contend that on account of these intervening facts, the leaned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition. He would further submit that an objection had been taken, before the learned Single Judge that the Memo, dated 31.08.2021, under which the earlier proceedings were kept in abeyance, had not been challenged and as such no reliance can be placed on the earlier Memos.
11. Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the land admeasuring Ac.3.86 cents was still vacant and available, and in any event, the respondent continues to be in possession of the land and the claim of the appellants that the respondent is not in possession, is incorrect.
12. He would further submit that the appellants having admitted that the land had been assigned to the father of the respondent, cannot take possession of the land without cancellation of the assignment made to the father of the respondent and no such documentation or proceedings have been placed before this Court. He would submit that the documents relied upon by the appellants, to claim that the possession had HCJ & RRR, J 7 W.A.No.338 of 2023 been handed over to the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, by the Tahsildar, are paper documents which are not supported by any physical handing over of the possession of the land.
13. The Memos issued by the Government, after a careful perusal of the revenue records and other records, are to the effect that the land admeasuring Ac.4.93 cents was assigned to the father of the respondent on the ground that he was an ex- serviceman. The District Collector, except claiming that it was not assigned as an ex-serviceman patta, has not placed any record before the Court or before the Government to substantiate his contention.
14. The objections of the District Collector, to the direction to delete the property of the respondent from the prohibitory list, are contained in the letter dated 19.06.2018 sent to the Principal Secretory, Government of Andhra Pradesh, for review of the earlier Memo dated 01.05.2018. The objection is essentially on the ground that the procedure that should have been followed for grant of patta under the ex-serviceman quota, was not followed. This objection is raised on the footing that the correspondence and other material showing that the procedure had been followed, is not available in the records of the District Collector. Various HCJ & RRR, J 8 W.A.No.338 of 2023 suspicions are raised on the ground that the D-form patta was granted to the father of the respondent after a lapse of 9 years from the date on which he had filed his application in 1961. It is significant that the District Collector, except raising such suspicions and conjectures does not dispute the fact that a patta was issued to the father of the respondent in 1970.
15. The objections raised by the District Collector have been raised 47 years after the issuance of the patta to the father of the respondent. The question of raising an objection to the patta issued to the father of respondent, after such a long lapse of time, on the basis of conjecture and suspicions, cannot be permitted. It is settled law that any attempt to an unsettle or reopen settled issues, on the basis of such conjecture would amount to an arbitrary exercise of power and has to be set aside.
16. The District Collector, apart from raising various suspicions about the manner in which the patta has been issued, also took the ground that the land has been delivered to M/s.VUDA under delivery receipt dated 01.01.2005. However, this contention is also belied by the same letter, dated 19.06.2018, wherein the District Collector states that the land has been kept vacant on account of the subsequent "status quo" orders. It may also be noted that the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.15223 of HCJ & RRR, J 9 W.A.No.338 of 2023 2007, while disposing of the said writ petition on 21.11.2012, also recorded the fact that Ac.3.86 cents of land is admittedly vacant even according to the reports of the various officers at different stages and that the land had been assigned to the father of the respondent in March, 1970 and his name was recorded as pattadar in the revenue records since then. The learned Single Judge, after going into all these issues, had held that it would be in the interest of justice to concede the request of the respondent for deletion of his property from the prohibitory list.
17. The learned Government pleader contended, finally, that since all the earlier memos had been kept in abeyance by the subsequent Memo dated 31.08.2021 and since the said memo was not challenged, the question of considering the request of the respondent for deletion of the property is not sustainable.
18. This objection has been answered by the learned Single Judge, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kala Bharati Advertising vs. Jemant Vimalnath Narichania and Ors.,1 holding that review of an earlier order is not permissible unless specific provision is available and in the present case no such power is available. Learned Single Judge on this basis, had 1 (2010) 9 SCC 437 HCJ & RRR, J 10 W.A.No.338 of 2023 held that the said Memo dated 31.08.2021 is without jurisdiction and nonest in the eye of law.
19. The conduct of the official respondents in the writ petition clearly shows an overwhelming desire to stop the respondent herein from enjoying the benefit of the land assigned to his father and the said conduct has been deprecated by the learned Single Judge, by awarding exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/- against each of the respondents. We do not find any reason to deviate from the said order.
20. In the circumstances, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, it would be open to the respondent to take appropriate steps, if any, available in law, in relation to the land which has been utilised for laying a road. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J JS HCJ & RRR, J 11 W.A.No.338 of 2023 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT APPEAL No.338 of 2023 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) Dt: 26.12.2023 JS