HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
I.A. No. 2 of 2022
In
W.P. No. 10474 of 2022
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)
1) The present application came to be filed to permit the
Petitioners herein to implead them as Respondent Nos. 13
and 14 in W.P. No.10474 of 2022 or pass such other order as this Court deem fit and proper.
2) The averments in the affidavit show that the deponent is working as District Forest Officer, Chittoor District. The present implead petition came to be filed, as the land which forms part of the present dispute, besides being a part of the erstwhile Punganur Zamaindar Estate, form part of a "Forest" recorded as "Avulapalli Forest Reserve" to an extent of Acres 71156.37 Cents in the revenue records as "Traverse Data". It is averred that the map was published on 12.07.1922 itself.
2
3) It is pleaded that, the legal status of the subject land is described as "Reserve Forest" from the year 1922 till date and in view of Section 3(b) of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, vest with the Government. It is further pleaded that, the claim of the Writ Petitioners possessing a Ryotwari Patta, said to have been issued by the then Settlement Officer, Nellore, cannot be considered, as it is a fabricated patta and never submitted the said patta before any Authority, at any point of time. It is said that, Ryotwari Patta, purported to have been issued by the Settlement Officer, cannot be taken into account under law and such right, if any, has to be considered by the statutory authority i.e., Forest Settlement Officer only.
4) (i) The averments in the affidavit refer to various factual and legal aspects to show that survey Nos. 568 and 569 admeasuring Acres 290.00 Cents and Acres 144.10 Cents, respectively, form part and parcel of Avulapalli Reserve Forest, notified under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967.
(ii) Having regard to the above, it is stated that the declaration made by one Neerajakshulu Naidu before the Land Reforms Tribunal, R.D.O., Madanapalle, under A.P. 3 Land Reforms Act and the Land Reforms Tribunal, which lead to passing of an Order in C.C. No. 1050/PGN/1975, dt.21.01.2020, is subject matter of adjudication in C.R.P. No.7122 of 2017, wherein, the declarant has claimed more land and the defendant has filed an implead affidavit in the same, without showing the Petitioners in I.A. i.e., Forest Department as Respondents.
(iii) In view of the disputed factual aspects and legal aspects, pleads that hearing of impleading petitioners is very much essential at the time of disposal of the writ petition.
5) (i) A counter came to be filed by the Writ Petitioners, disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. It is the case of the Writ Petitioners that, they were issued Ryotwari Patta by the Settlement Officer under Section 11 of the Act, 1948, and thereby they are claiming right and title over the subject matter.
(ii) It is submitted that, the Writ Petitioners hold pattadar passbook and title deeds in their favor in respect of land in survey No. 569. It is said that, without raising any finger, at any point of time, the proposed Respondents have claimed subject land as Reserve Forest. According to them, 4 the impugned order is in relation to illegal grabbing of subject property by unofficial Respondents.
(iii) It is urged that, the implead Petitioners have to establish their right independently by filing a Writ Petition questioning the Order of the Land Grabbing Court, in-stead of impleading themselves in the present Writ Petition filed by the Writ Petitioners questioning the Order of the Land Grabbing Court in not entertaining their O.P. In other words, the case of the Writ Petitioners appears to be that the proposed Respondents have no locus to put-forth their grievances with regard to ownership of the land in W.P. filed by the Writ Petitioners questioning the findings given in L.G.O.P. Hence, pleads that the request made to bring implead petitioners as proposed Respondents has to be rejected.
6) (i) The learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh, appearing for the implead Respondent Nos. 13 and 14, would contend that the implead Respondents were never made parties before the Land Grabbing Court and the observations and findings given therein would affect their case, if they are not allowed to put forward their case, in this Writ Petition.
5
(ii) The learned Advocate General would contend that, if the findings given by the Land Grabbing Court are confirmed by this Court, the same would come in the way of Forest Department in establishing their case in other proceedings. He took us through the judgment of the Land Grabbing Court and the findings arrived at, in support of his plea.
7) On the other hand, Sri. P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Writ Petitioners, while reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit filed in the implead petition would contend that, the findings if any by the Land Grabbing Court is binding only on the parties to the lis and that the same would not be binding on the implead Respondents. Hence pleads that, filing of the implead application in this Writ Petition would not be of any help to the implead Petitioners, as they cannot request the Court to set-aside the findings given.
8) At this stage, the learned Advocate General would contend that, having regard to the manner in which the prayer is made, the implead Respondents may be permitted to come on record as interveners.
6
9) As seen from the record, the implead Respondents were not shown as parties in L.G.O.P. No. 130 of 2015. The findings given by the Land Grabbing Court are to the effect that the Petitioners therein failed to bring their case within the provisions of Land Grabbing Court. While holding that if the Writ Petitioners feel that they have remedies elsewhere other than approaching the Special Tribunal, they are at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law. It was held that the Court cannot return the petition filed when the petition is not at all coming under the purview of the provisions of the Act.
10) In paragraph 16 of the Order, it has been held as under:
"Apart from the contents of these registered documents which reads that the possession of the property is not in favor of the family members of the Petitioners, even there is an admission on the part of the petitioners that concerned respondents got mutated the property basing on the strength of the sale deeds and the revenue records are mutated in the name of the respondents. The respondents filed Exs. B1, B5, B6 and B7 pattadar pass books apart from the registered sale deeds standing in their name. So, all these goes to show that what all the contentions that are set-up by the petitioners that still they are in possession and 7 enjoyment of the property along with the respondents 1 and 2 is contra to the registered documents as well as the revenue records. In the entire pleadings, there is no whisper that the respondents 3 to 6 and 7 to 12 wrongfully grabbed into the petition schedule property. When the pleadings are so consistent through-out that the respondents got mutated the revenue entries on the strength of the so called sale deeds, which conveys a meaning that they are in possession, a stray sentence is added with a manuscript that on the strength of the sale deeds the respondents are in illegal possession. If that be the case, how the petitioners are able to seek preventive relief of permanent injunction is not known. When the petitioners are asserting that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property and that they are entitled to permanent injunction, the contention of the petitioners that the respondents are in wrongful possession deserves no merits. On the other hand, the evidence of RW1 goes to show that on the strength of the sale deeds, the respective respondents came into possession."
11) In paragraph No. 24 of the said Order, it has been held as under:
"Now, as this Court already pointed-out, the petitioners miserably failed to bring the alleged act of the respondents within the purview of land grabber. On the other hand, even the petitioners admitted the sale deeds standing in the name of 8 respondents, as such, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that the respondents are the land grabbers. Even in the above said decision, the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. held that the order passed by the Special Court is vitiated, as such, it set-aside the judgment of the Special Court. It is not a case where the Hon'ble High Court on the ground that the Special Court has no jurisdiction passed any order directing the return of the petition. Of course, it is a fact that the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. held that the respondents should not be precluded from availing the remedies that may be available to them in law if they lost possession. So, by virtue of the above said findings of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and still if the petitioners feel that they have remedies elsewhere other than approaching the Special Tribunal constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, still they are at liberty to avail the remedies in accordance with law. But, this Court cannot go on to return the petition when the petition is not at all coming under the purview of the provisions of the Act and the case of the petitioners is totally out of the purview of the provisions of the Act. So, I am not convinced to return the petition to be presented before proper Court and apart from this, the petition cannot be presented as it is before the proper Court and the petitioners have to think-
over the remedies available to them and to mould their relief in accordance with law. Needless to point out here that the fact that the petitioners failed to get remedy before this Tribunal is not 9 going to defeat the remedies if any available to them in accordance with law. Viewing from any angle, I am of the considered view that the petitioners miserably failed to prove that they are entitled right and tile along with respondents 1 and 2 and further they failed to show that the petition is maintainable before this Tribunal and further they failed to prove their possession and enjoyment and their entitlement to the declaration and permanent injunction. Viewing from any angle, there are no merits in the petition, as such, the petition must fail."
12) Having regard to the findings given, the apprehension of the learned Advocate General that, they would be remediless if the findings are confirmed by the High Court, cannot be brushed aside. Allowing the implead Respondents to come on record as Respondent Nos.13 and 14 would at-least help the Court in deciding the nature of the property, which is subject matter of dispute.
13) Further, it is not a small extent of land, but, as seen from the record, the total extent of land in two survey numbers is nearly 350 acres. The claim of the implead Petitioners is that, this land is a Forest, "Avulapalli Reserve Forest", while the Writ Petitioners denies the same. 10
14) The grievance of the Writ Petitioners appears to be that, in a Writ Petition filed by the third parties, the proposed Respondents cannot be allowed to come on record contesting the findings given in a lis between the Writ Petitioners and the Respondents. It may be true that, the lis is between the Writ Petitioners and the Respondents before the Land Grabbing Court. But, at the same time, the learned Advocate General, placed on record material which prima facie show that the land in dispute is a forest falling under reserve forest area, which, in our view, also has to be looked into before passing final orders in the Writ Petition.
15) At this stage, it would be appropriate to look into the prayer made in the implead application. The request of the Petitioners in the implead application is to implead them as Respondent Nos. 13 and 14 and also to pass such other order or orders as this Court deem fit, in the circumstances of the case.
16) Having regard to the above, we permit the implead Respondents to come on record as interveners and raise objections in accordance with law. Accordingly, the I.A. is allowed. No order as to costs.
11
17) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR __________________________________ JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI Date: 04.01.2023 SM...-
12
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI I.A. No. 2 of 2022 In W.P. No. 10474 of 2022 (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar) Date: 04.01.2023 SM.