Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Poosapati Madhava Varma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 September, 2023
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATHI
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.14060 OF 2023
Poosapati Madhava Varma ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District & Others. ..... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.Challa Ajay Kumar
Counsel for the respondents : Mr.G.L.Narasimha Reddy,
G.P. for Revenue/Assignments,
Mr.Mamidi Rama Rao,
Senior Counsel
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed inter alia seeking to set aside the Proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 06.04.2023 and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's land in any manner pursuant to the above said proceedings.
2. Claiming that the petitioner is the absolute owner of land of an extent of Ac.7.42 cents in Survey No.71(2)(d) of Paradesipalem Village, that he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same since five decades and that all the legal heirs of one late Mr.P.Jogi Jagannadha 2 Raju have authorised the petitioner to take care of the property, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. The Writ Petitioner on the earlier occasion filed W.P.No.27365 of 2022 challenging a Letter dated 12.08.2022 addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bheemunipatnam/3rd respondent herein to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madhurawada Zone, Visakhapatnam City, on various grounds.
4. This Court in view of the submissions made by the counsel appearing for both sides, with their consent, disposed of the said Writ Petition by an order dated 25.01.2023 with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bheemunipatnam to pass appropriate orders, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner (writ petitioner herein) and respondents 5, 7 to 9 in the said Writ Petition as also other interested parties, if any, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six (6) weeks. Pursuant to the said orders, the impugned order/proceedings dated 06.04.2023 came to be passed.
5. Heard Mr.Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the official respondents and Mr.Mamidi Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the unofficial respondents.
3
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was issued to the petitioner in terms of the above referred order and the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that on the petitioner coming to know about the enquiry by the 3rd respondent only, the petitioner attended the enquiry and filed written submissions on behalf of the writ petitioner and without considering the same in a proper perspective, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order with a malafide intention to favour respondents 5 to 7 herein. He further contends that as there is a title dispute between the parties, the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same and the impugned proceedings are therefore not sustainable in Law.
7. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue, who placed the original record for perusal of this Court as per the direction dated 21.06.2023 argued the matter. He refuted the contentions that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity before passing the impugned order. Drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant material in the original record, he submits that notices with regard to conduct of enquiry by the 3rd respondent were issued to the petitioner through registered post, appearance was entered by the learned advocates on behalf of the writ petitioner on 27.02.2023 before the 3rd respondent by filing vakalat and the same would disprove the contentions advanced that the 4 petitioner was not afforded any opportunity, much less by issuing a notice in terms of the orders dated 25.01.2023 in W.P.No.27365 of 2022. The learned Government Pleader had also drawn the attention of this Court to the attendance sheets in respect of the proceedings before the 3rd respondent, which were duly signed by the counsel appearing/representing the writ petitioner/1 st respondent in the proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer/3rd respondent. Denying the allegations of malafides, he contends that the Writ Petition is misconceived, not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
8. Mr.Mamidi Ramarao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents contended that the Writ Petition is misconceived and there are no valid grounds for interfering with the orders under challenge, much less, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that the petitioner having invited an order from the 3rd respondent only with a view to frustrate the same as it went against him, filed the present Writ Petition. He also denies the contention that the impugned proceedings are issued only to favour the respondents 5 to
7. In any event, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the indulgence of this Court in exercise of its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the material on record demonstrates that the plea of non-issuance of 5 notice is untrue and raised only for the purpose of maintaining the Writ Petition. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition.
9. On an appreciation of the rival contentions and perusing the original record, this Court finds no merits in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Further, even as per the admitted case of the petitioner as seen from Para No.9 of the affidavit, he appeared before the 3rd respondent, submitted a detailed counter along with the relevant documents, apart from written submissions. In fact, the writ petitioner is represented by an Advocate. When such is the position, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner about non-issuance of the notice merits no appreciation. Suffice to state that material on record goes against the petitioner and no conclusion can reasonably be arrived at, that the proceedings of the 3rd respondent are vitiated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
10. So far as the other aspects of the case regarding the correctness or otherwise of the proceedings of the 3rd respondent with reference to the factual position is concerned, it may be noted here that the proceedings impugned came to be passed in view of the consent order dated 25.01.2023. In terms of the said orders of this Court, the 3 rd respondent had conducted an enquiry and issued impugned proceedings. The allegations of malafides attributed to the 3rd respondent are vague 6 and he is not made eo-nomine party to the Writ Petition. Therefore, the contentions in this regard are rejected.
11. In the light of the conclusions arrived at supra, the Writ Petition based on the plea of violation of principles of natural justice is without substance, the stand taken is contrary to record and the petitioner is therefore not entitled for any indulgence of this Court. In so far as other factual controversies with regard to property in question, the same cannot conveniently be gone into in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Suffice to state that it is for the petitioner to seek recourse to the other remedies available in Law.
12. In the aforestated view of the matter, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 21.09.2023 BLV 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.P.No.14060 of 2023 Date: 21.09.2023 BLV