Telangana High Court
Aguluri Chenchu Subba Rao vs The Tahsildar, Palvancha on 16 December, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.27936 of 2009
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-
"...issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with petitioner possession over 2 acres 24 gts of land in Sy.No.38 of Somulagudem Village, Palvancha Mandal, Khammam District, as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional, and direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from 2 acres 24 gts of land in Sy.No.38 of Somulagudem Village, Palvancha Mandal, Khammam District or pass..."
2. Heard Sri C. Hari Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri K. Jagdishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri K. Ujjwal Babu, learned counsel representing Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is peaceful owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.2-24 gts in Sy.No.38, situated at Somulagudem Village, Palvancha Mandal, Khammam District (presently Bhadadri Kothagudem District). The petitioner's father was in possession of the subject land 2 JSR,J W.P.No.27936 of 2009 since the year, 1969 and after his death, the petitioner is continuing to be in possession of the same from the year, 1971 onwards. While so, respondent No.1 had initiated proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1908 (for short "the Act, 1908") alleging that the petitioner has encroached the land and passed an eviction order vide proceedings No.B/706/96, dated 19.01.1998. He further submits that aggrieved by the said eviction order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 10 of the Act, 1908 vide C.M.A.No.5 of 1998, before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palvancha; and the appellate authority simply dismissed the appeal vide order, dated 29.06.1998. Questioning the said order, the petitioner further filed an appeal vide Case No.E2/1181/2000 before the Joint Collector, Khammam. The Joint Collector Khammam, after considering the contentions of the petitioner and after verification of the entire records, allowed the appeal vide order, dated 19.05.2003 and remitted the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Palvancha to pass orders afresh after examining the matter with reference to the six (6) points 3 JSR,J W.P.No.27936 of 2009 mentioned in the said order by giving opportunity to the parties. Pursuant to the said order, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Palvancha, after due enquiry, and after considering the contentions of the parties, dropped the encroachment proceedings initiated under the Act, 1908 against the petitioner vide proceedings No.B/706/96, dated 19.01.1998 and the said order has become final. In spite of the same, respondent No.1 at the instance of respondent No.2 is interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property without issuing any notice and the same is violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to law.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 vehemently contended that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under law. The petitioner by merely impleading the Tahsildar, Palvancha, as party respondent filed the present Writ Petition against respondent No.2. He further submits that the nature of relief sought by the petitioner in the Writ Petition is nothing but petitioner seeking perpetual 4 JSR,J W.P.No.27936 of 2009 injunction. The petitioner without approaching the competent civil Court filed the Writ Petition and the same is not maintainable in law, illegal, and against Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, much less the relief against respondent No.2.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has made bald allegations without filing any iota of evidence that respondent No.1 has interfered with the subject property.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it clearly reflects that the petitioner is claiming rights over the subject property from his forefathers. It is also an undisputed fact that the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Palvancha initiated proceedings invoking provisions of the Act, 1908 and passed eviction orders under Section 6 of the Act, 1908 on 15.02.2005 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional 5 JSR,J W.P.No.27936 of 2009 Officer, and the appellate authority confirmed the said order in C.M.A.No.5 of 1998 vide order, dated 28.06.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner further preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector vide Case No.E2/1181/2000. The Joint Collector after due verification of the records, allowed the appeal of the petitioner vide order, dated 19.05.2003 and remitted the matter to the primary authority i.e., Mandal Revenue Officer, Palvancha and directed him to pass orders afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner on the six (6) points. The operative portion of the order passed by the Joint Collector reads as under:
"1. Originally the land was occupied by the father of the petitioner and in continuous possession of the land since 1959.60 and subsequently petitioner is in the continuous possession from 1970.71.
2. Whether the four rooms titled house bearing No. 15.38 of Paloncha is acquired before the occupation of the land or after the occupation of the schedule land.
3. Whether the land is objectionable or unobjectionable encroachment?
4. Reasons for not taking into consideration of corroborate evidence of the adjacent land owners viz., Paila Rajaiah.
5. If the possession of the petitioner is established from the date of year 1959.60 whether the petitioner is entitled for the concessions granted in GO Ms. No. 41, dated. 12.1.1971.6
JSR,J W.P.No.27936 of 2009
6. Whether the petitioner succeeded the possession from his father, if so, whether he is entitled to retain the possession or not?"
7. Pursuant to the said order, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Palvancha after conducting a detailed enquiry and verifying the entire records, dropped the land encroachment proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide order, dated 15.02.2005 and the same has become final.
8. The specific claim of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that respondent No.1, without issuing any notice, is trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property at the instance of respondent No.2. It is needless to observe that respondent No.1 without issuing any notice to the petitioner, is not entitled to dispossess or interfere with the possession of the subject property.
9. In the above facts and circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 not to dispossess or interfere with the petitioner's possession over 7 JSR,J W.P.No.27936 of 2009 the subject property i.e., agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2-24 gts in Sy.No.38 of Somulagudem Village, Palvancha Mandal, Khammam District, without following the due procedure as contemplated under law. In the event of respondent No.2 interfering with the subject property, the petitioner is granted liberty to avail appropriate remedy available under law by approaching competent Civil Court.
10. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO December 16, 2023.
BMS