Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

M. Radha Krishnaiah and three others filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned proceedings No.D.Dis(E4)/REV- ESECOLAS(APL)/48/2020 dated 02.01.2021 canceling the DKT pattas issued in favour of the petitioners vide its file No.260/4/91 dated 05.09.1983, 263/4/91 dated 17.05.1982, 260/4/91 dated 17.05.1982 and 259/4/1991 dated 17.05.1982 without any authority and on flimsy grounds while exercising power under Board Standing Order No.15 (paragraph 18) and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their land situated in Survey Nos.387/2, 387/1, 385/3 and 385/1 to an extent of Ac.3.62 cents, Ac.3.62 cents, Ac.2.90 cents and Ac.2.90 cents of land at Kannavaram village of Satyavedu Mandal of Chittoor District except in accordance with law and subject to payment of compensation under Fight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The petitioners are poor people belonging to the weaker sections. Having considered their poverty, the 5th respondent had allotted the subject land to the petitioners and granted DKT pattas in their favour since the year 1981 onwards. Since the date of assignment of land by issuing DKT pattas, the petitioners are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land cultivating the same by raising different crops. The 5th respondent issued pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioners and their names were also mutated in the revenue records. Form 1B register, adangal pahani also disclosed the names of the petitioners being the owners and that the MSM,J WP_8277_2021 petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property cultivating the land since the date of assignment. As such, their possession cannot be disturbed.

It is further contended that the revenue authorities are not competent to issue any notice to these petitioners for cancellation of DKT pattas on the ground that the land belongs to the forest department. When the notice was issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioners have contested before the 3rd respondent and an enquiry was conducted. Upon hearing both the parties i.e., the petitioners and the forest department, the 3rd respondent had cancelled the DKT pattas issued in favour of the petitioners and directed the 5th respondent to make appropriate changes in the revenue records. The impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent cancelling the DKT Pattas which were issued since the year 1981 onwards is highly arbitrary and not sustainable under law. The ground on which the DKT pattas were cancelled is that due to oversight the land was assigned to the petitioners. The said ground is not sustainable. The petitioners are cultivating the land since the date of assignment of the land and after lapse of 40 years, the respondents came up with the plea that the petitioners are not cultivating the land and the land was assigned to them by mistake of fact. Respondent No.3 exercised power under paragraph 18 of Standing Order No.15 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders [for short, 'BSO 15(18)'] and such exercise of power after 40 years without raising any ground of fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining DKT patta is unsustainable. The revenue authorities have assigned the land to these petitioners way back in the year 1981 and thereupon respondents cannot invoke BSO 15(18) in view of the law laid down by the common High Court in N. Nagamani Parvathi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh1 and the erstwhile High Order dated 31.12.2018 in W.P.No.26046 of 2018 MSM,J WP_8277_2021 Court of A.P in Mandlappa @ Mandla Giriappa v. Mandal Revenue Officer2 so also in the decision in B. Adinarayana Murthy v. Collector, Ananthapur District3.

When the petitioners made similar attempts in 2011 to encroach the land, a case was registered vide DOR.No.83/2011-12/Satyavedu Range and they were not allowed to enter into the reserve forest. Thus, the possession of the subject lands is only with the forest department since the date of notification.

MSM,J WP_8277_2021 On 24.01.2008 the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Chittoor, the Forest Settlement Officer, Chittoor, the Tahsildar, Satyavedu and the Forest Range Officer, Satyavedu, have conducted a joint inspection of these lands and concluded that "before issue of Section - 15 notification, no claims were received in connection with the disputed land either from revenue department or from public. Hence the area was notified as 'Reserved Forest' u/s.15, and the notification was published on 11.09.1969. This was not entered or changed in revenue records as this area was notified u/s.15 and handed over to the Forest department by the Tahsildar. Further no individuals/pattadars had claimed the area even though DKT pattas were issued." The Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor East (WL) division, Chittoor, also submitted the fact to the District Collector, Chittoor, along with joint inspection report dated 24.01.2008 with a request to cancel the DKT pattas. Thereupon the Joint Collector, Chittoor, conducted review meeting on 05.05.2008 with Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor East (WL) division, Chittoor, Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Chittoor, the Tahsildar, Satyavedu and with the Surveyor, Sathyavedu. In the said review meeting held by the Joint Collector on 05.05.2008 it was resolved that 'issuing of pattas is a mistake of the Revenue department, due to such mistakes boundary disputes are arising and finally the Joint collector instructed to start a Vana Samrakshana Samithi with DKT pattadars for their livelihood.' On 06.06.2008, the forest officials conducted Kannavaram Vana Samrakshana Samithi meeting and 2/3rd majority of Vana Samrakshana Samithi members have resolved that the DKT pattadars of Kannavaram disputed area did not belong to the Kannavaram revenue village and also that the pattadars have no lands in neighboring villages and requested to take action to cancel the pattas in Kannavaram village. The Forest Settlement Officer, Chittoor, in Rc.No.A/21/2008, dated 09.02.2009, has reported the fact to the District MSM,J WP_8277_2021 Collector, Chittoor, recommending for cancellation of DKT pattas issued in Rajugunta Reserve forest area.