Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Sri Jhala Siddarth Singh, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 November, 2021

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                  WRIT PETITION No.13266 of 2021

ORDER:

The petitioner claims that the 2nd respondent-hospital

had encroached upon Ac.4.27077 sq.ft., situated at Sy.No.109,

Visakhapatnam City, belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner

states that initially, the 2nd respondent-hospital had encroached

only upon Ac.1.2700 sq.ft which was confirmed by the Assistant

Director Survey and Land Records, Visakhapatnam in

proceedings L.Dis.No.198/2006/B1, dated 05.12.2006. He

submits that a legal notice was issued to the 2nd respondent on

15.02.2020, calling upon the 2nd respondent, to vacate the

unauthorised occupation of the land. Instead of vacating the

said unauthorised occupation, the 2nd respondent proceeded to

encroach upon the balance vacant land in Sy.No.109 and has

presently encroached upon Ac.4.27077 sq.ft.

2. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit, in

which, the details of the establishment of the 2nd respondent

and the developments carried out in relation to the 2nd

respondent have been set out. It is further stated that the 2nd

respondent is in occupation of Ac.52.00 cents since more than

70 years and a wall has been constructed all around the said

land. The 2nd respondent also relied upon a town survey

land. As far as the proceedings dated 05.12.2006 of the

Assistant Director are concerned, the 2nd respondent took the

RRR,J W.P.No.13266 of 2021

stand that the he has no knowledge of these proceedings.

Thereupon, to ascertain the genuineness of the proceedings

dated 05.12.2006, the Assistant Director, District Survey of

Land Records, Visakhapatnam was impleaded as respondent

No.4. In the course of the hearing of the said application filed

for impeading the 4th respondent, the learned Government

Pleader for Revenue had produced instructions dated

29.09.2021 wherein it was stated that the proceedings produced

by the petitioner are not true and that there is no such

document available in the office of the Assistant Director. The

4th respondent had also filed a counter affidavit in the implead

petition in which, it was stated that the aforesaid proceedings

said to have been issued by the office of the Assistant Director

do not relate to the office of the Assistant Director and infact

there is no B-1 section maintained in the office of the Assistant

Director. It was also stated that the reference quoted by the

petitioner is false.

3. The petitioner had filed a rejoinder to the counter

affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent and the para-wise remarks

of the Assistant Director, District Survey of Land Records,

Visakhapatnam. In this rejoinder, the petitioner denied the

statements made in the counter and para-wise remarks and

indicated his willingness to participate in a fresh survey to be

conducted by the Assistant Director, District Survey of Land

Records, Visakhapatnam.

4. Sri Bhaskar Poluri, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the counter filed by the 4th respondent

RRR,J W.P.No.13266 of 2021

in the implead petition was not served on the petitioner. He

further submits that the counter filed by the 2nd respondent and

the 4th respondent do not make out a case in favour of the

respondents. He submits that there is no denial of the title of

the petitioner in the counter of the 2nd respondent and that the

2nd respondent does not set out the manner in which the 2nd

respondent has obtained title to the land. He submits that in

such a situation, the counter of the 2nd respondent is wholly

non-responsive to the averments made in the affidavit filed in

support of the writ petition and as such, it must be deemed that

the 2nd respondent has no answer to the contentions of the writ

petitioner.

5. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ

petition does not set out as to how the petitioner obtained title

to the property. A family tree is given along with the writ

petition. However, this family tree does not explain as to how

the petitioner or his forefathers obtained title to the said

property. It is not even set out as to when the property is said

to have come into the family of the petitioner. The town survey

record which has been produced by the petitioner shows the

name of the Government along with the name of Smt.Rani Sahib

of Wadhwan. The Town Survey Record also states that the land

is Government land. As far as the proceedings of the Assistant

Director are concerned, the 4th respondent has categorically

denied the existence of such record.

RRR,J W.P.No.13266 of 2021

6. The petitioner has now taken the stand that initially

there was an encroachment of Ac.1.27077 sq.ft of land and

thereafter, the 2nd respondent had encroached upon the

remaining land of the petitioner in the year 2020 onwards. The

case of the 2nd respondent is that there has been a wall

surrounding the land of the 2nd respondent. In these

circumstances, the silence of the petitioner on the question of

when the 2nd respondent had originally encroached upon the

initial extent of land and the specific days and weeks in which

the 2nd respondent is said to have encroached upon the

remaining land in the year 2020, also goes against the case of

the petitioner.

7. As can be seen from the above facts, the issues

raised in the present disputes are relating to questions of fact

which require a proper enquiry by a Court or authority or

appropriate jurisdiction. These are issues which cannot be

dealt with by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226

of the Constitution of India.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any

pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

16.11.2021 RJS

RRR,J W.P.No.13266 of 2021

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.13266 of 2021

22.11.2021

RJS

RRR,J W.P.No.13266 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

***

W.P.No.10283 of 2021

Between:

1. Nallamothu Veeraiah, S/o.late Seshaiah, aged about 85 years, Occ: Agriculture.

2. Nallamothu Venkateswarlu, S/o.Late Bollaiah, aged about 78 years, Occ: Agriculture.

3. Nallamothu @ Nelluri Vijaya Sarathi, S/o.Late Venkata Ramaiah, aged about 41 years, Occ:Private Employee.

(All the petitioners are resident of Nadendal Village and Mandal, Guntur District).

... Petitioners

And

$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

3. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Naaz Centre, Guntur.

... Respondents

Date of Judgment pronounced on : 22-11-2021

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No

May be allowed to see the judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No

to Law Reporters/Journals:

3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No

Of the Judgment?

RRR,J W.P.No.13266 of 2021

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

+ W.P.No.10283 of 2021

% Dated: 22-11-2021

Between:

1. Nallamothu Veeraiah, S/o.late Seshaiah, aged about 85 years, Occ: Agriculture.

2. Nallamothu Venkateswarlu, S/o.Late Bollaiah, aged about 78 years, Occ: Agriculture.

3. Nallamothu @ Nelluri Vijaya Sarathi, S/o.Late Venkata Ramaiah, aged about 41 years, Occ:Private Employee.

(All the petitioners are resident of Nadendla Village and Mandal, Guntur District).

... Petitioners

And

$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

3. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Naaz Centre, Guntur.

... Respondents

! Counsel for petitioners : V.Venu Gopala Rao

^Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 : G.P. for Endowments.

<GIST :

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred: