Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Order vs Unknown on 3 November, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION No.41195 of 2018
ORDER:-
This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in making the Endorsement dated 14.08.2018 rejecting the application of the petitioner filed for deletion of the land in Sy.No.71/1 admeasuring Ac.4-92 cents situated in P.L.Puram Village, Payakaraopet Mandal, Visakhapatnam District from prohibitory property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 treating the land as Poramboke, is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 to receive, register and release the sale deeds presented by the petitioner for the land in Sy.No.71/1 admeasuring Ac.4-92 cents situated in P.L.Puram village, Payakaraopet Mandal, Visakhapatnam...."
2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that the land in an extent of Ac.4-92 cents situated in Sy.No.71/1 of P.L.Puram Village, Payakaraopet Mandal, Visakhapatnam District is a private Zeroithi land and the original pattadar sold the said land to one Sri Ganti Subba Rao in the year 1920 and he in his turn sold the same to Muchu Appanna under registered sale deed dated 28.04.1950 vide registered sale deed bearing document No.1070/1950 and the said Appanna sold the said property to one Rajaiah on 21.02.1957 under registered sale deed bearing document No.437/1957. Thereafter, the Legal Representatives of 2 the said Rajaiah sold the said property to the father of the petitioner viz., Kondabbai on 08.03.1982 under registered sale deed bearing document No.867/1982 and in the family settlement effected among the petitioner and his family members, the subject property devolved on the petitioner in the year 1995. Eversince, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. The revenue authorities have issued pattadar passbook and title deeds vide patta No.195 in favour of the petitioner and he has been paying cist to the revenue authorities. It is the further case of the petitioner that he intend to develop the subject land by drawing a layout therein and approached the 8th respondent- Sub Registrar, Nakkapalli, Visakhapatnam District, to ascertain the market value and then he was informed that the subject land was included in the prohibitory property list furnished by the 6 th respondent- Tahsildar, Payakaraopeta Mandal and he was further informed that the subject property is an assigned land. Immediately, the petitioner made an application through Mee-seva on 06.07.2018 and also a personal representation dated 10.07.2017 to the 6th respondent-Tahsildar for deletion of his land from the list of prohibited properties, who in turn forwarded the same to the 5 th 3 respondent for necessary action enclosing a detailed report. The 5th respondent in turn submitted to the same to the 4th respondent-District Collector, who is the competent authority to take action. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent without going into the merits of the case has issued endorsement dated 14.08.2018 rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner.
It is the further case of the petitioner that the subject property is a Zeroithi property and registered sale deeds were allowed to be registered in respect of the subject land since the year 1920 and the revenue records maintained clearly show that the property is a patta land and the State had never claimed any interest over the subject property and further the said land was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and he has been raising crops. Thus, the reports submitted by 6th and 5th respondents stating that the subject land is a D-Form Patta land and Poramboke land are not tenable and both the reports were given without proper verification of the records and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. Thus, the impugned orders dated 14.08.2018 passed by the 4 th respondent by relying on the reports submitted to him by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, 4 is unsustainable. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this Writ Petition.
3. The 6th respondent-Tahsildar, filed counter denying the averments of the petition inter alia contending that the petitioner did not file any documents to substantiate the alleged sale transactions over the subject land nor any proof regarding his possession and enjoyment. As per the settlement fair adangal of the village and the entries in Adangal 1390 fasli, the subject land is classified as a Government Poramboke land. Thus, the 4th respondent- Collector and competent authority rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.
5. Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration, would submit that the subject land is a private Zeroithi land and multiple sale transactions were held vide registered sale deeds in respect of the said land since the year 1920 and the revenue records would also show that the subject land is a patta land and further, the petitioner was granted 5 pattadar passbook and title deed in respect of the subject land and that the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject land and he has been paying revenue to the concerned authorities. Thus, the reports submitted by the 5th and 6th respondents stating that the subject land is classified as Poramboke are without any basis and contrary to the revenue records and thus the reports so submitted and the consequential action of the 4th respondent in rejecting the petitioner's application is unsustainable. It is further submitted that classification of the land, if any, is without following the procedure and the same was done behind the back of the petitioner and he has not been given any opportunity and thus the same does not bind the petitioner. It is further submitted that though the petitioner has filed a detailed representation through mee seva, the 4th respondent without adverting to the submissions so made by the petitioner and without looking into the facts of the case, simply relying on the false reports submitted by 5th and 6th respondents, rejected the application vide impugned orders, which is very cryptic and bereft of reasons. It is further submitted that the petitioner having been in possession of the subject land and multiple sale transactions took 6 place in respect of the said land, he is entitled to claim title over the subject land. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on G.Satyanarayana v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned endorsement and direct the respondents 7 and 8 to receive, register and release the sale deeds presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject land.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, would submit that the reports furnished by the respondents 5 and 6 make it clear that the subject land is classified as a poramboke and basing on the reports submitted, the 4th respondent has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner and thus the impugned endorsement does not warrant any interference of this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Perused the material and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. For brevity, the impugned order is extracted hereunder:
"With reference to your request for de-notification of Sy.No.71/1 of Padalavani Lakshmipuram Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal from the 1 .2014(4) ALD 358 7 list of prohibited properties u/s 22-A, it is to inform that, as per the reports of RDO, Narsipatnam and Tahsildar, Payakaraopeta, the subject land stands classified as "PORAMBOKE". Hence, your request for de-notification is not considered."
8. In his representation, the petitioner has mentioned various sales held in respect of the subject land and he has also placed reliance on certain revenue records. In the impugned order, the Collector did not advert to any of the contentions raised by the petitioner and no proper reasons were given for rejecting the claiming made by the petitioner for de-notification. Further, the impugned order nowhere shows that the petitioner was heard before passing the said orders. In view of these, the endorsement of the Collector is unsustainable, since the same lacks reasons besides being violative of principles of natural justice and hence the same is liable to be set aside.
9. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed-in-part in the following terms:
(a) the impugned endorsement dated 14.08.2018 passed by the District Collector Visakhapatnam vide File No. REV-ESECOLND(22A)/290/2018-JA(E7)-VSKPCO is set aside
(b) the petitioner is at liberty to make a detailed representation duly enclosing all the documents in 8 support of his claim to the property along with the earlier representation within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this the order;
(c) On receipt of such representation, the 4 th respondent-
District Collector, Anakapalli (now) is directed to take up the said representation, afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass reasoned order, in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of eight (08) weeks thereafter.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed and Interim Orders, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date : 03.11.2022 RR 9 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION No. 41195 of 2018 Date : 03.11.2022 U RR