Anakapalli Varalakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2099 AP

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                  WRIT PETITION NO.18592 OF 2019

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

"....to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in

the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of

respondents in interfering with petitioners' property without

initiating land acquisition proceedings, as illegal, arbitrary and

violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India

and to consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with

the properties of petitioners situated in an extent of Ac.4.00

cents each in Sy.No.389 of Edulapaka Bonangi Village,

Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and to pass such

other order...."

2. The 1st petitioner and other petitioners are absolute

owners and possessors of Ac.4.00 cents each in Sy.No.389 of

Edulapaka Bonangi Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam

District. During the life time of 1st petitioner's grandfather,

he executed a Will, dated 27.06.2003 bequeathing the aforesaid

property to 1st petitioner, her mother-in-law and other

co-sisters i.e., petitioners 3 and 4 herein equally i.e., Ac.4.00

cents each.

3. On 07.07.2014 all the petitioners have filed an application

for survey and demarcation of the land allotted to their

respective shares in order to avoid future complications. When

the same was not being acted upon, the petitioners filed

W.P.No.30255 of 2014 before this Court and this Court was

pleased to dispose of the said Writ Petition directing the

Assistant Director, S & LRS, Visakhapatnam to consider the

application of petitioners vide orders, dated 10.10.2014. The 3rd

respondent issued orders in Rc.No.183/2015/SA, dated

18.02.2017 refusing to conduct survey on the ground that the

land is classified as 'Gayalu' in Settlement Record. Besides

refusing to survey the land, the 3rd respondent preferred an

appeal before the 2nd respondent. The petitioners filed their

counter explaining their title and contended that the appeal

filed by the 3rd respondent before the 2nd respondent is not

maintainable. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the 3rd

respondent the petitioners have also filed an appeal before the

2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent allowed the appeal filed by

the 3rd respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the

petitioners vide RC.No.1587 of 2017 C, dated 06.11.2017,

which is illegal and arbitrary.

4. It is the specific contention of petitioners that the land in

Sy.No.389 of E.Bonangi Village is Zeroithi land and the same

has been reflected in the revenue records. In fact, the

3rd respondent in the Adangal for the year 2000 clearly

mentioned that the land in Sy.No.389 is Zeroithi land and it is

neither assigned land nor government land.

5. The statute prescribes no appeal against the orders

passed under Section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in

Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short "the Act")

and therefore, no appeal before 2nd respondent, challenging the

Pattadar Pass Book is maintainable. Hence, the impugned

orders passed by the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and

without jurisdiction.

6. No counter is filed.

7. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners

reiterated the contentions urged in the petition while relying on

the Division Bench judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad in Ratnamma vs. The Revenue

Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and

two others1. Basing on the principle laid down in the above

judgment learned counsel for the petitioners requested to set

aside the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent by

declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

placed on record the instructions along with copy of Adangal

which shows that the land in an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in

Sy.No.389 of Edulapaka Bonangi Village, Parawada Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District is classified as "Gayalu" (AWD) and it

belongs to the Government and the same cannot be recorded in

the name of the petitioners by mutating the name etc., while

admitting that the issue involved in this matter is covered by

the judgment in Ratnamma's case (referred supra).

2015 (6) ALD 609 (D.B.)

9. In view of the law declared by the Division Bench

judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad in Ratnamma's case (referred supra), no further

adjudication is required in this matter, since the order passed

by the Tahsildar is not appealable to Revenue Divisional Officer

and revisable under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in

Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 by the Joint Collector

under Section 9 of the Act.

10. Hence, applying the principle laid down in the Division

Bench judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad in Ratnamma's case (referred supra), the order

passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in RC.No.1587 of

2017 C, dated 06.11.2017 on the appeal filed by the Tahsildar,

Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District is declared as

without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same.

However, it is left open to the Tahsildar, Parawada to take

appropriate action in accordance with law.

11. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any,

shall also stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 23.06.2021

IS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITION NO.18592 OF 2019

Date: 23.06.2021

IS