Saripalli Venkata Ratnam vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7184 AP

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                    PETITION No.4743 of 2022

ORDER:

The 1st petitioner claims ownership and possession over

Ac.0.05 cents of land and the 2nd petitioner claims ownership

and possession over Ac.0.08 cents of land in Sy.No.234/5 of

Pathapatnam Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District on the

basis of a registered deeds of sale dated 10.03.2021 as

document No.686/2021 and document No.1013/2021

registered as document No.687/2021, in the office of the

Sub-Registrar, Kotabommali from one Smt. B.Geetha and her

daughters.

2. The petitioners claim that they were to put in

possession after the execution of these sale deeds. Later, the

officials of the 2nd respondent erected sign boards in this land

claiming that the land belonged to the 2nd respondent. The

petitioners have approached this Court with the contention

that the said boards have been erected forcibly and without

any enquiry and without any notice to the petitioners who are

the actual owners of the land.

3. They contend that the said action is clearly high

handed, arbitrary and requires to be interdicted by this

Court.

4. Sri M.Keshava Rao learned counsel, appearing for

the petitioners would submit that Smt.B.Geetha, the vendor

of the petitioners was the owner of the said land, by way of

inheritance and the same was also recorded in the revenue

records for the year 2020-2021. He submits that the said

revenue records clearly demonstrate the ownership of

Smt.B.Geetha and consequently, the ownership of the

petitioners.

5. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit in

which the said facts are denied. Sri A.Veera Swamy learned

counsel, appearing for respondent No.2, would submit that

the revenue records of the year 2020-2021 produced by the

petitioners are fabricated documents and the said B.Geetha

has no right or claim over any part of this land as she herself

was an encroacher and had occupied the land between the

land of respondent No.2 and the road margin.

6. Sri A.Veera Swamy would also draw the attention

of this Court, to the sale deed of 1960 which says that about

Ac.0.15 cents of land in Sy.No.234 had been purchased by

the Melia Putti Cooperative Marketing Society and that this

land vested with the 2nd respondent on account of the merger

of this society into the 2nd respondent, in pursuance of the

scheme formulated by the Government for merger of all Taluk

Level Societies into the District Level Society in the year

1987. He submits that prior to this merger, the earlier society

had constructed godowns over Ac.0.02 cents of land. After

merger, quite a few godowns and lands belonging to the

Taluk Level Societies had been neglected by the District Level

Society. To correct this negligence, the officials of the 2nd

respondent society have now placed boards in all the lands,

belonging to the Taluk Level Societies, and the boards were

placed, in the land now being claimed by the petitioners, as a

part of the said exercise.

7. Sri A.Veera Swamy, would submit that the 2nd

respondent is in possession of the entire Ac.0.15 cents of

land, belonging to the 2nd respondent, and the claim of the

petitioners that they are in possession of Ac.0.13 cents of

land, out of the above Ac.0.15 cents, is incorrect and is

denied.

8. Sri M.Keshava Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioners would submit that the 2nd respondent is in

possession of the entire Ac.0.15 cents of land, belonging to

the 2nd respondent, and the claim of the petitioners that they

are in possession of Ac.0.13 cents of land, out of Ac.0.15

cents, is incorrect and is denied.

9. Sri M.Keshava Rao, relied upon the Judgment, of

a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 12.08.2021, in

W.P.No.16849 of 2021, to contend that, this Court in similar

circumstances had set aside a similar action of the

respondents therein placing notice boards on the site claimed

by the petitioner therein. He submits that this Judgment

would apply to the present case also. In the present case,

both the petitioners and the 2nd respondent claim possession

of the land. Both claim ownership of the land by virtue of

registered deeds of sale. The question of who is in possession

of the land is a matter raising a question of fact which this

Court is not equipped to deal with. It is settled law that where

complicated questions of fact requiring an in depth enquiry is

required, it would be open to the Court to reject such a writ

petition.

10. As far as the Judgment cited by the learned

counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the said Judgment

was passed in a case where the respondents therein had not

disputed the ownership of the petitioner over the land. In the

present case, there is a clear dispute relating to the

ownership and possession of the land. Consequently, a

Judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge, would not

be applicable to the facts of this case.

11. In view of the above, this writ petition is

dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail of their

remedies as available in law. There shall be no order as to

costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

19.09.2022

RJS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.4743 of 2022

19.09.2022

RJS