Smt A Ramakka vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 771 AP

          HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


 HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                            &
          HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR


                           Writ Appeal No.10 of 2021

                           (Through video conferencing)

Smt.A.Ramakka, W/o A.Rajanna,
aged about 65 years, Occ : Housewife,
R/o Kolimipalli Village, Diguvapalli Post,
Choudepalli Handal, Chittoor District & 4 Others          ..      Appellants


                                     Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat Buildings,
Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District & 5 Others                                ..      Respondents


Counsel for the Appellants                    :   Smt.B.Neeraja Sudhakar
                                                  Reddy

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4             :   G.P. for Revenue

Counsel for Respondent No.5                   :   Mr.K.Srinivas

Counsel for Respondent No.6                   :   --



                                   JUDGMENT

Dt : 11.02.2021

(per C.Praveen Kumar, J)

1. Assailing the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 17.11.2020,

passed in Writ Petition No.21242 of 2020, the present Writ Appeal is filed

by Respondent Nos. 6 to 10 in the Writ Petition.

2. The facts, which led to filing of the present Writ Appeal, are as

under :

The Writ Petitioner/Respondent No.5 herein filed the Writ Petition

to declare the action on the part of the respondents 2 to 4 therein, in not

considering her representations, dated 11.10.2020, 12.10.2020 and

13.10.2020, for mutation of her name in the revenue records and also to

grant pattadar passbook in her favour, in respect of 50 percent of the

properties derived by her from her grandfather in respect of survey

numbers mentioned. In the averments in the affidavit, filed in support of

the writ petition, the petitioner claims that her grandfather executed a Will

Deed, dated 18.05.1985, in her favour, bequeathing 50 per cent of his

properties in her name for the services rendered by her to him during his

last days. After death of the grandfather, the petitioner became the

absolute owner of 50% of the properties owned and possessed by her

grandfather during his life time. Thereafter, respondents 5 to 10 therein

claimed to have exclusive joint rights over the entire properties, though

the grandfather of the petitioner bequeathed 50% of his lands in favour of

the petitioner.

While things stood thus, the Writ Petition No.8761 of 2020 came to

be filed by the petitioner before this Court questioning the action of the

authorities in not conducting survey of her lands and fixation of

boundaries. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 21.05.2020 directing

the official respondents to consider the representation made therein, in

accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar conducted an

enquiry and issued endorsement, dated 05.09.2020, wherein he passed

an order holding that the writ petitioner has to approach the competent

civil court and establish her rights over the properties and till then, her

request to fix survey stones cannot be accepted. Subsequent to the order

passed by the Tahsildar, the present Writ Petition came to be filed, which

was disposed of, at the admission stage, giving opportunity to the

petitioner to file Form 6-A application through online and on filing of such

application, the respondents therein were directed to consider the same

as per the provisions of ROR Act, after issuing notice to the concerned

unofficial respondents, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

3. Challenging the same, the unofficial respondents therein preferred

the Writ Appeal contending that no notice was issued to them before

passing the said order, though they were arrayed as respondents in the

writ petition.

4. Smt.B.Neeraja Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants,

would contend that had the notice been served on appellants, they would

have brought to the notice of the Court, the litigation between the parties;

the order passed in Writ Petition No.8761 of 2020, dated 21.05.2020; the

order passed in Writ Petition No.24741 of 1997, dated 14.08.2007; and

the endorsement, dated 05.09.2020, issued by the Tahsildar, pursuant to

the orders in W.P.No.8761 of 2020. According to her, if all facts were

placed on record, the learned Single Judge might not have passed the

order impugned.

5. On the other hand, Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the

writ petitioner/respondent No.5 herein, would submit that the order

passed by the learned single Judge will not cause any prejudice to the

appellants, as the learned single Judge directed the official respondents

therein to consider Form 6-A application of the writ petitioner as per the

provisions of ROR Act after hearing all concerned, which includes the

appellants herein.

6. Admittedly, the appellants were not heard by the learned Single

Judge, though they were shown as respondents in the writ petition.

At the stage of admission, the writ petition was disposed of directing the

respondents to consider representation made by the writ petitioner after

hearing all the concerned. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel

for the writ petitioner/respondent No.5 herein.

7. A reading of the endorsement, dated 05.09.2020, makes it very

clear, that Tahsildar, after due enquiry, directed the writ petitioner to

approach the civil court and get her rights established over the properties.

Reasons were given as to why the Tahsildar has come to such a

conclusion. According to her, as the endorsement of the Tahsildar has not

been challenged, consideration of Form 6-A application would not arise.

It is further stated in the grounds of appeal that the order passed by this

Court in Writ Petition No.24741 of 1997 was also not brought to the notice

of the court.

8. Having regard to the above, the order under challenge is set aside

and matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for fresh

consideration. The writ petitioner is at liberty to make a request before

the learned single Judge for taking up the matter at the earliest.

9. With the above directions, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                          C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

skmr