Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Case Of The vs Chellaghali Achiraju1 on 21 October, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.22524 of 2020
ORDER:
The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the owners of
Ac.17.19 cents in Sy.No.112 and Ac.19.45 cents in Sy.No.186 of
Suryaraopet Village of erstwhile Kakinada Taluka, East Godavari District.
2. The petitioners base their title over the said lands in the
following manner:
The land was originally part of the Pithapuram Inam Estate. The
name of the grandfather of the petitioners, viz., Sri Kesana Subbanna was
entered in the Inam Fair Register, in column No.16, in the year 1927-28,
as the present holder, with the name of Raja of Pithapuram shown in
column 13 as the original grantee. Thereafter, a ryotwari patta is said to
have been issued to the father of the petitioners Sri Kesana Ammiraju, by
proceedings dated 23.09.1965, by the Board of Revenue in terms of the
proviso to Section 11 of the Andrha Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The petitioners
contend that after the said order dated 23.09.1965, the name of Sri
Kesana Ammiraju was entered into the other revenue records and the
same can be seen from the settlement fair Adangals relating to Sy.No.112
and 186. The petitioners had also relied on the Village Account No.2 (Old
Adangals) prepared in terms of the Madras Manual of Village Accounts.
2 RRR,J
W.P.No.22524 of 2020
The petitioners rely upon the certified copies of these documents obtained
from the State Archives and Research Institute, Hyderabad.
3. The petitioners had sought issuance of pattadar passbooks
for this land. As the said pattadar passbooks were not being issued, the
petitioners had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.9281 of 2019 and
the same is pending. The petitioners have approached this Court, being
aggrieved by the action of the respondents in seeking to lay a road
through the land belonging to the petitioners due to which an extent of
Ac.10.11 cents in Sy.No.112 and an extent of Ac.7.42 cents in Sy.No.186
would be affected, without acquiring the same.
4. The 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer has filed a
counter affidavit stating that the Fair Adangal Register does not contain
the name of the family members of the petitioners. The 3rd respondent
contends as follows:
a) Except the entries in No.2 Adangal obtained from the State
Archives, no further documents are available to support the case of the
petitioners.
b) The veracity and genuineness of the said copy has to be
verified.
c) No evidence has been placed to show that Sri Kesana Subbanna
acquired the property from the Raja of Pithapuram in the year 1928.
3 RRR,J
W.P.No.22524 of 2020
d) The petitioners are raising the claim of ownership after a lapse
of 90 years.
e) There is no material to show that the grandfather of the
petitioners had cultivated the land.
f) No documents were filed by the petitioners or family members
either before the Settlement Officer or before the Settlement Officer cum
Joint Collector, East Godavari District to prove their title over the land.
g) The documents obtained from the State Archives are not
admitted and are disputed.
5. In addition to the above objections, the 3rd respondent also
contends that the Tahsildar had conducted an enquiry on the question
whether the land is private land and whether it belongs to the petitioners.
In this enquiry, the petitioners failed to prove their title over the land and
as such they would not be entitled to any compensation. The 3 rd
respondent also states that the Collector and District Magistrate, East
Godavari District had allotted land admeasuring Ac.6.94 cents for creation
of 80 feet wide master plan road as per the approved master plan. The
Municipal Corporation has filed a counter affidavit stating that the land
had been given to the Municipal Corporation by the Revenue Department.
6. Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners has relied upon the Village Account No.2 Adangal and other
documents obtained from the State Archives to contend that the said
4 RRR,J
W.P.No.22524 of 2020
records are sufficient to demonstrate the title of the petitioners over the
property in question. He would also rely upon the judgment of a Full
Bench of the Hon'ble High Court at Madras in Jurugumilli Brahmayya
(Minor), by Mother and Next Friend, Rajeswaramma vs.
Chellaghali Achiraju1, in support of his contentions.
7. The issues raised by Sri P. Roy Reddy require deeper study
and further exposition of the law. However, this Court is handicapped by
the fact that the material placed by the petitioners before this Court
requires to be validated in a properly conducted enquiry or trial in a suit.
It would be unsafe for this Court to proceed purely on the basis of the
certified copies said to have been obtained from the State Archives
Department without the said documents being tested in a proper enquiry
or trial. As submitted by the respondents, this Court cannot arrive at the
findings of fact on the basis of the few documents placed before it and
whose veracity is not admitted by the respondents.
8. In the circumstances, this Court has no choice except to
relegate the petitioners to avail of such remedies as are available to them
and to demonstrate their title and right over the lands in questions. In the
event of the petitioners demonstrating such a right and title, they would
be entitled for compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair
ILR (1922) 45 Mad 716 : AIR 1922 Mad 373 (FB) : (1922) 43 Mad LJ 229 (FB)
5 RRR,J
W.P.No.22524 of 2020
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.
9. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous
petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
21st October, 2022.
Js.
6 RRR,J
W.P.No.22524 of 2020
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.22524 of 2020
21st October, 2022
Js.
