) The Present Application Came To ... vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 78 AP

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
                                AND
          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

                           I.A. No. 2 of 2022
                                    In
                        W.P. No. 10474 of 2022

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)


1)        The present application came to be filed to permit the

Petitioners herein to implead them as Respondent Nos. 13

and 14 in W.P. No.10474 of 2022 or pass such other order as

this Court deem fit and proper.

2) The averments in the affidavit show that the deponent is

working as District Forest Officer, Chittoor District. The

present implead petition came to be filed, as the land which

forms part of the present dispute, besides being a part of the

erstwhile Punganur Zamaindar Estate, form part of a "Forest"

recorded as "Avulapalli Forest Reserve" to an extent of Acres

71156.37 Cents in the revenue records as "Traverse Data".

It is averred that the map was published on 12.07.1922

itself.

3) It is pleaded that, the legal status of the subject land is

described as "Reserve Forest" from the year 1922 till date and

in view of Section 3(b) of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates

(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, vest with

the Government. It is further pleaded that, the claim of the

Writ Petitioners possessing a Ryotwari Patta, said to have

been issued by the then Settlement Officer, Nellore, cannot be

considered, as it is a fabricated patta and never submitted the

said patta before any Authority, at any point of time. It is said

that, Ryotwari Patta, purported to have been issued by the

Settlement Officer, cannot be taken into account under law

and such right, if any, has to be considered by the statutory

authority i.e., Forest Settlement Officer only.

4) (i) The averments in the affidavit refer to various

factual and legal aspects to show that survey Nos. 568 and

569 admeasuring Acres 290.00 Cents and Acres 144.10

Cents, respectively, form part and parcel of Avulapalli Reserve

Forest, notified under Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967.

(ii) Having regard to the above, it is stated that the

declaration made by one Neerajakshulu Naidu before the

Land Reforms Tribunal, R.D.O., Madanapalle, under A.P.

Land Reforms Act and the Land Reforms Tribunal, which lead

to passing of an Order in C.C. No. 1050/PGN/1975,

dt.21.01.2020, is subject matter of adjudication in C.R.P.

No.7122 of 2017, wherein, the declarant has claimed more

land and the defendant has filed an implead affidavit in the

same, without showing the Petitioners in I.A. i.e., Forest

Department as Respondents.

(iii) In view of the disputed factual aspects and legal

aspects, pleads that hearing of impleading petitioners is very

much essential at the time of disposal of the writ petition.

5) (i) A counter came to be filed by the Writ Petitioners,

disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support

of the petition. It is the case of the Writ Petitioners that, they

were issued Ryotwari Patta by the Settlement Officer under

Section 11 of the Act, 1948, and thereby they are claiming

right and title over the subject matter.

(ii) It is submitted that, the Writ Petitioners hold

pattadar passbook and title deeds in their favor in respect of

land in survey No. 569. It is said that, without raising any

finger, at any point of time, the proposed Respondents have

claimed subject land as Reserve Forest. According to them,

the impugned order is in relation to illegal grabbing of subject

property by unofficial Respondents.

(iii) It is urged that, the implead Petitioners have to

establish their right independently by filing a Writ Petition

questioning the Order of the Land Grabbing Court, in-stead of

impleading themselves in the present Writ Petition filed by the

Writ Petitioners questioning the Order of the Land Grabbing

Court in not entertaining their O.P. In other words, the case

of the Writ Petitioners appears to be that the proposed

Respondents have no locus to put-forth their grievances with

regard to ownership of the land in W.P. filed by the Writ

Petitioners questioning the findings given in L.G.O.P. Hence,

pleads that the request made to bring implead petitioners as

proposed Respondents has to be rejected.

6) (i) The learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra

Pradesh, appearing for the implead Respondent Nos. 13 and

14, would contend that the implead Respondents were never

made parties before the Land Grabbing Court and the

observations and findings given therein would affect their

case, if they are not allowed to put forward their case, in this

Writ Petition.

(ii) The learned Advocate General would contend that,

if the findings given by the Land Grabbing Court are

confirmed by this Court, the same would come in the way of

Forest Department in establishing their case in other

proceedings. He took us through the judgment of the Land

Grabbing Court and the findings arrived at, in support of his

plea.

7) On the other hand, Sri. P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior

Counsel, appearing for the Writ Petitioners, while reiterating

the averments made in the counter affidavit filed in the

implead petition would contend that, the findings if any by

the Land Grabbing Court is binding only on the parties to the

lis and that the same would not be binding on the implead

Respondents. Hence pleads that, filing of the implead

application in this Writ Petition would not be of any help to

the implead Petitioners, as they cannot request the Court to

set-aside the findings given.

8) At this stage, the learned Advocate General would

contend that, having regard to the manner in which the

prayer is made, the implead Respondents may be permitted to

come on record as interveners.

9) As seen from the record, the implead Respondents were

not shown as parties in L.G.O.P. No. 130 of 2015. The

findings given by the Land Grabbing Court are to the effect

that the Petitioners therein failed to bring their case within

the provisions of Land Grabbing Court. While holding that if

the Writ Petitioners feel that they have remedies elsewhere

other than approaching the Special Tribunal, they are at

liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law. It was held

that the Court cannot return the petition filed when the

petition is not at all coming under the purview of the

provisions of the Act.

10) In paragraph 16 of the Order, it has been held as under:

"Apart from the contents of these registered documents which reads that the possession of the property is not in favor of the family members of the Petitioners, even there is an admission on the part of the petitioners that concerned respondents got mutated the property basing on the strength of the sale deeds and the revenue records are mutated in the name of the respondents. The respondents filed Exs. B1, B5, B6 and B7 pattadar pass books apart from the registered sale deeds standing in their name. So, all these goes to show that what all the contentions that are set-up by the petitioners that still they are in possession and

enjoyment of the property along with the respondents 1 and 2 is contra to the registered documents as well as the revenue records. In the entire pleadings, there is no whisper that the respondents 3 to 6 and 7 to 12 wrongfully grabbed into the petition schedule property. When the pleadings are so consistent through-out that the respondents got mutated the revenue entries on the strength of the so called sale deeds, which conveys a meaning that they are in possession, a stray sentence is added with a manuscript that on the strength of the sale deeds the respondents are in illegal possession. If that be the case, how the petitioners are able to seek preventive relief of permanent injunction is not known. When the petitioners are asserting that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property and that they are entitled to permanent injunction, the contention of the petitioners that the respondents are in wrongful possession deserves no merits. On the other hand, the evidence of RW1 goes to show that on the strength of the sale deeds, the respective respondents came into possession."

11) In paragraph No. 24 of the said Order, it has been held

as under:

"Now, as this Court already pointed-out, the petitioners miserably failed to bring the alleged act of the respondents within the purview of land grabber. On the other hand, even the petitioners admitted the sale deeds standing in the name of

respondents, as such, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that the respondents are the land grabbers. Even in the above said decision, the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. held that the order passed by the Special Court is vitiated, as such, it set-aside the judgment of the Special Court. It is not a case where the Hon'ble High Court on the ground that the Special Court has no jurisdiction passed any order directing the return of the petition. Of course, it is a fact that the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. held that the respondents should not be precluded from availing the remedies that may be available to them in law if they lost possession. So, by virtue of the above said findings of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and still if the petitioners feel that they have remedies elsewhere other than approaching the Special Tribunal constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, still they are at liberty to avail the remedies in accordance with law. But, this Court cannot go on to return the petition when the petition is not at all coming under the purview of the provisions of the Act and the case of the petitioners is totally out of the purview of the provisions of the Act. So, I am not convinced to return the petition to be presented before proper Court and apart from this, the petition cannot be presented as it is before the proper Court and the petitioners have to think-

over the remedies available to them and to mould their relief in accordance with law. Needless to point out here that the fact that the petitioners failed to get remedy before this Tribunal is not

going to defeat the remedies if any available to them in accordance with law. Viewing from any angle, I am of the considered view that the petitioners miserably failed to prove that they are entitled right and tile along with respondents 1 and 2 and further they failed to show that the petition is maintainable before this Tribunal and further they failed to prove their possession and enjoyment and their entitlement to the declaration and permanent injunction. Viewing from any angle, there are no merits in the petition, as such, the petition must fail."

12) Having regard to the findings given, the apprehension of

the learned Advocate General that, they would be remediless

if the findings are confirmed by the High Court, cannot be

brushed aside. Allowing the implead Respondents to come on

record as Respondent Nos.13 and 14 would at-least help the

Court in deciding the nature of the property, which is subject

matter of dispute.

13) Further, it is not a small extent of land, but, as seen

from the record, the total extent of land in two survey

numbers is nearly 350 acres. The claim of the implead

Petitioners is that, this land is a Forest, "Avulapalli Reserve

Forest", while the Writ Petitioners denies the same.

14) The grievance of the Writ Petitioners appears to be that,

in a Writ Petition filed by the third parties, the proposed

Respondents cannot be allowed to come on record contesting

the findings given in a lis between the Writ Petitioners and the

Respondents. It may be true that, the lis is between the Writ

Petitioners and the Respondents before the Land Grabbing

Court. But, at the same time, the learned Advocate General,

placed on record material which prima facie show that the

land in dispute is a forest falling under reserve forest area,

which, in our view, also has to be looked into before passing

final orders in the Writ Petition.

15) At this stage, it would be appropriate to look into the

prayer made in the implead application. The request of the

Petitioners in the implead application is to implead them as

Respondent Nos. 13 and 14 and also to pass such other order

or orders as this Court deem fit, in the circumstances of the

case.

16) Having regard to the above, we permit the implead

Respondents to come on record as interveners and raise

objections in accordance with law. Accordingly, the I.A. is

allowed. No order as to costs.

17) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

__________________________________ JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

Date: 04.01.2023 SM...-

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

I.A. No. 2 of 2022 In W.P. No. 10474 of 2022 (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)

Date: 04.01.2023

SM.