Kallam Suryaprakash vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 845 AP

                THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

                       WRIT PETITION No.3863 of 2022

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant

Government Pleaders for Social Welfare and Revenue appearing for the

respondents 1 to 6.

The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe

community. Petitioner is the absolute owner of the land to an extent of

Ac.10.05 cents in Sy.No.232 and Ac.10.10 cents in Sy.No.252 of Potavaram

Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari Mandal by way of inheritance from

the ancestors. Originally, the great grandfather of the petitioner acquired the

above properties in the year 1905. After his demise, the property devolved on

his wife, Karam Gangamma and from her the property devolved on Karam

Ramayamma, grandmother of the petitioner. Names of the great grandmother

and grandmother of the petitioner were incorporated in the revenue records.

The father of the 7th respondent, viz., Tamma Rao, who was a non tribal,

raised a dispute claiming title over the subject land in the year 1970. The

lands are situated in the agency area covered by the provisions of the agency

law. The great grandmother of the petitioner approached the Deputy

Collector, Tribal Welfare, East Godavari District/sub-agent to Government by

way of petition vide LTRP.No.35/77 seeking eviction of the father of the 7th

respondent who is in occupation of the part of Ac.20.15 cents. The Deputy

Collector allowed the petition in favour of Karam Gangamma, great

grandmother of the petitioner and against the father of the 7th respondent.

Aggrieved by the same, the father of the 7th respondent preferred appeal vide

CMA.No.110 of 1978 before the Agent to the Government, Kakinada and the

same was dismissed on 12.01.1989. Later the father of the 7th respondent filed

W.P.No.1461 of 1989. The writ petition was also dismissed on 03.02.1989

directing the petitioner to prefer revision before the Government against the

order passed by the Agent to the Government in CMA.No.110 of 1978, within

two weeks. Accordingly, the father of the 7th respondent filed revision before

the Government. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 21.03.1996,

dismissed the revision by confirming the orders of Agent to the Government.

Pending revision before the Government, the father of the 7th respondent also

filed OS.No.9 of 1990 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry,

East Godavari District, against the sons of Karam Gangamma for perpetual

injunction restraining them from ever interfering with his possession of land to

an extent of Ac.20.00 cents. The suit was dismissed on 20.01.1997. No appeal

was preferred and the judgment has become final. Thus, the great

grandmother of the petitioner has perfected her title over the subject lands.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revenue authorities,

while incorporating the name of the grandmother of the petitioner in revenue

records, have entered Ac.8.07 cents only instead of Ac.20.15 cents, as per the

orders passed in LTRP.No.35 of 1977 as confirmed in CMA.No.110 of 1978 and

GOMS.No.30 dated 21.03.1996. Entire extent of the land of the grandmother of

the petitioner was calculated in hectares i.e.,8.07 hectares in Sy.Nos.232 &

252. However, the revenue authorities while updating the revenue records,

instead of converting the hectares into acres, wrongly mentioned as Ac.8.07

cents [Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.252 and Ac.4.07 cents in Sy.No.232] instead of

8.07 hectares, which is equivalent to Ac.20.15 cents [1 hectare = Ac.2.50

cents]. Taking advantage of the error crept in the revenue record, now the 7th

respondent is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

land to an extent of Ac.20.15 cents, which is illegal. The petitioner approached

the respondents on several occasions and also submitted complaints in mee-

seva and spandana dated 13.06.2016, 25.11.2019 and 09.11.2020. Pursuant to

the application dated 09.11.2020, the 5th respondent - Revenue Divisional

Officer, addressed a letter to the 6th respondent - Tahasildar to conduct

enquiry and submit report but till date the same was not done. Hence, he

seeks a direction to the respondents 2 to 6 to consider his applications and

prevent the 7th respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the petitioner's property.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for

the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner's grandmother or the

petitioner have not taken any steps for execution of the order passed by the

sub agent to Government in LTRP.No.35 of 1977. The mistake occurred is in

the revenue records. Therefore, it is for the respondents 5 & 6 to correct the

revenue records and petitioner has to pursue the remedy before the

respondents 5 & 6 as per law. Writ petition is not maintainable.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned

counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the grandmother of

the petitioner obtained order in LTRP.No.35 of 1977, which was eventually

confirmed by the Government vide GO.Ms.No.30 dated 21.03.1996. However

grandmother of the petitioner during her lifetime and/or thereafter the

petitioner has not taken any steps to execute the said order before the Agent

to Government. It appears that the revenue authorities while incorporating

the name of the grandmother of the petitioner in the revenue records, instead

of mentioning 8.07 hectares or Ac.20.15 cents, wrongly mentioned as Ac.8.07

cents in Sy.Nos.232 and 252 of Potavaram village. It also appears taking

advantage of the wrong entry, 7th respondent is interfering with the possession

of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court, in the interests of justice, felt it

appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to

consider the application submitted by the petitioner in Spandana vide

Application No.EAG201911257861 dated 25.11.2019 and also application dated

09.11.2020 as directed by the 5th respondent vide proceedings in

Ref.D.No.431/2020 dated 10.11.2020, within a period of six weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the

petitioner. It is left open to the petitioner to take steps for execution of the

order passed in LTRP.No.35 of 1977, as per law, before the appropriate

authority.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO 15.02.2022 Vjl

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

WRIT PETITION No.3863 of 2022

15.02.2022

Vjl