Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M Parvathy, 4 vs State Of ... on 7 October, 2023

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                    WRIT PETITION No.13770 OF 2017
ORDER:-

      The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, seeking the following relief:

             "... to issue a writ or order, orders or direction more
     particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the
     proceedings dated 01.07.2016 in Rc.No.459/2011/A issued by
     the Respondent No.3 and all consequential proceedings including

issuance of adangal pahani to the unofficial respondents as illegal and arbitrary and oppose to principles of natural justice and set aside the same, to declare the action of Respondent No.3 as violative of principles of natural justice in not issuing notices to the petitioners herein although the petitioners' names are reflecting as pattadars for the said land in Sy.No.547/3B of Adavi Village, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District and pass such other order or orders..."

2. The case of the petitioners is as follows:

3. The petitioners herein are the absolute owners and possessors of the

land admeasuring Acs.28.87 cents in Survey No.547/3B of Adavi Village,

Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, having acquired the same by way of

purchase from the rightful owners and pattadars namely Sri Bethalam

Sivarama Raju, Smt. Vegiraju Seetha Ramamma, Sri Bethalam Kotam Raju

and Sri Chituru Rama Prabhakar, Tulasi pai and also Smt.Ch. Sarala

respectively on 23.11.2000. After such acquisitions in compliance of NV,J

provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books

Act, 1971(for short hereinafter "the Act, 1971") the petitioners got mutated

their names into revenue records accordingly they were issued pattadar

pass books as well as land title deeds in their favour by the respondents.

After mutation of their names into revenue record in respect of the lands

purchased by them, they have started aqua farming after obtaining

permission from the Coastal Aqua Authority on 04.08.2008. Since then,

they have been carrying on aqua farming in respect of above subject lands.

Later in the year 2008, the said aqua farms were converted into venami

prawn culture farms. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued renewal of

registration by mentioning that the aqua culture farms / aqua farms

situated in Survey No.547/3 of Adavi village.

4. While so, the unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed writ petition

No.29598 of 2011 challenging mutation of names of third parties in respect

of land admeasuring Acres 22.95 cents in Survey No.547/3B of

Adavigramam Village, Bapatla Mandal without application of mind and

ignoring the rights and ownership of the petitioners therein and unofficial

respondents herein and also prayed to direct the respondents to conduct

survey of lands admeasuring Acres 22.95 Cents in survey No.547/3B and

further prayed to direct the respondents to issue Pattadar Pass Books and

title deeds in their favour. After hearing the matter, this Court was pleased

to dispose of the writ petition extracted as under:

"...The specific grievance of the petitioners is non-

consideration of their claim with reference to the documents by the NV,J

5th respondent appears sustainable. I deem it just an appropriate to

direct the 5th respondent to consider petitioners' representations

referred to above together with the documents and pass appropriate

orders in accordance with law. In order to avoid any ambiguity in

that respect, petitioners are also granted opportunity to file a

detailed representation afresh together with all authentic copies of

documents to enable the 5th respondent to consider all the

documents including the copies of the earlier representations

referred to above, and to appreciate their grievance and pass

appropriate orders on their representation in accordance with law.

The petitioners are granted two weeks time to file such revised

representation as directed above, and after considering the same the

5th respondent shall pass appropriate orders, within six weeks

thereafter, after notice to affected parties, if any..."

5. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted counter affidavit

which was filed in W.P.No.29598 of 2011, on behalf of the Respondent No.3,

wherein it is stated that Smt. Mantena Parvathy and four others of Guntur

District have filed W.P.No.13770 of 2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of

A.P. at Hyderabad praying to declare the proceedings dated 01.07.2016 in

Rc.No.459/11/A issued by Respondent No.3 i.e. Tahsildar, Bapatla and all

consequential proceedings including issuance of adangal pahani to the

unofficial respondents as illegal and arbitrary and oppose to principles of

natural justice and set aside the same, to declare the action of Respondent

No.3 in violation of principles of natural justice in not issuing notices to the NV,J

petitioners herein although the petitioners' names are already reflecting as

pattadars for the said land in Sy.No.547/3B of Adavi Village, Bapatla

Mandal, Guntur District.

6. The unofficial respondents also filed counter affidavit as well as

material papers wherein it is stated that a total extent of Ac.68.87 cents is

situated at Sy.No.547/3 and thereafter the survey number was sub divided

into 547/3A and 547/3B. Out of total extent of Ac.68.87 cents, an extent of

Ac.40.00 cents fell into Sy.No.547/3A and same was surrendered by the

original owners Sri Govada Seetharamaiah and Smt. Lakshmidevamma to

the Government under Section 10 of the Land Reforms Act and the

Government also accepted the said surrender and passed the final order in

C.C.No.1459/B/75 dated 21.08.1981. Later the land was appears to have

assigned to the beneficiaries but remaining extent of Ac.28.87 cents was fell

into the Sy.No.547/3B and the said land is belongs to our grandmother

Smt. Alaparthi Rattamma by way of succession being a wife, thereafter her

only son i.e. our late father Sri Alaparthi Venkaiah Chowdary inherited the

said property. The unofficial Respondent No.6 and the other sharers got

portioned the said land under a registered Partition Deed dated 14.12.1957

vide document No.2781/1957, under which himself and his deceased

brother by name Sri Alaparthi Surendranath alias Ragaviah, who is

Respondent No.5 in the present writ petition, got an extent of Ac.22.95 cents

in Sy.No.547/3B. Ever since we have been in continuous possession and

enjoyment of the same in our own right, title and interest without any

interruption from any quarter.

NV,J

7. It is further stated that on reading of the allegations made in the

paragraph No.3 of the writ affidavit, it would clinchingly establish that the

petitioners appears to have purchased the land from one Sri Govada

Harihara Prasad and Sri Lajapati Roy through a power of attorney holder Sri

Alapati Ratna Kumar under an agreement of Sale on 10.03.1983 to an

extent of Ac.28.00 cents in Sy.No.547/3 and later the same was registered

by the GPA Holder Sri A. Ratna Kumar. It is pertinent to mention herein

that the said Sri Govada Harihara Prasad and Sri Lajapati Roy are none

other than the own sons of the original declarant Govada Seetharamaiah.

Hence, the petitioners are only concerned with the land situated in

Sy.No.547/3A but not the land in Sy.No.547/3B. It appears that the sale

transactions were took place with regard to the excess / surplus lands

which are declared under the Land Reforms Act, 1971. Therefore, the sale

transactions are null and void under Section 17 of the Land Reforms Act,

1971.

8. The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners

herein are the absolute owners and possessors of an extent of land

Acs.28.87 cents in Survey No.547/3B of Adavi Village, Bapatla Mandal since

2000, after having acquired the same through various separate registered

sale deeds. He further submits that the petitioners had acquired property

from lawful title holders and their vendors, who in turn acquired the subject

lands through registered sale deeds on 04.03.1986 and on 30.01.1991.

Some of the lands were acquired by the petitioners vendors from their

vendors on 26.02.1988. Therefore, the subject lands were acquired by the NV,J

vendor's and vendors of the petitioners in the years 1986 as well as 1988.

After such acquisition, as per the Section 5 of the Act, 1971, the petitioners

were issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in their favour as per their

acquisition through registered sale deeds.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the

petitioners obtained required permissions for carrying prawn culture and

fish culture from the coastal aqua authority on 04.08.2008 in respect of

subject lands in Survey No. 547/3 of Adavi Village. Since then, petitioners

have been cultivating fish / prawn culture in respect of the subject lands.

He further submits that the unofficial respondents are also claiming the

rights in respect of part of the property i.e. Ac.22.95 cents out of Acres

28.87 cents in survey No.547/3B of Adavi village and they filed

W.P.No.29598 of 2011. It is further submitted that even though the

petitioners herein were shown as pattadars and possessors of the said land

as per Revenue Record without impleading the petitioners herein as party

respondents and filed the above writ petition on the ground that the official

respondents without application of mind mutated and issued pattadar pass

books in favour of third parties / petitioners herein and prayed that the

same should be cancelled and to issue fresh pattadar pass books and title

deeds in their favour.

10. After hearing the matter, this Court was pleased to pass an order

directing Respondent No.5 therein and Respondent No.3 herein, i.e. the

Tahsildar, Bapatla Mandal to pass an order, after considering the

representation of the writ petitioner in accordance with law. Therefore, NV,J

Respondent No.3 was specifically directed to pass an order after providing

an opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders and by issuing notices as

contemplated under the provisions of the Act, 1971. He further submits

that pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 13.02.2014, Respondent

No.3 passed an impugned order dated 01.07.2016 by ignoring the purport of

order of this Court, held that the unofficial respondents are the absolute

title holders of the land admeasuring 22.95 cents in Survey No.547/3B.

More so, the said proceedings were issued without following due procedure

as contemplated under the Act, 1971 and without issuing any notice in

favour of the petitioners, as such the impugned order is contrary to the

judgment of this Court dated 13.02.2014.

11. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that one

Sri A. Venkayya Chowdary who is the father of the unofficial respondents

was adopted by A. Ratnamma W/o. Raddaiah. During her lifetime, she

bequeathed land admeasuring Ac.68.87 cents in Survey No.547/3 of Adivi

Village, Bapatla Mandal, in favour of father of the unofficial respondents.

He further submits that the survey No.547/3 was bifurcated as 547/3A with

an extent of Ac.40.00 Cents and 547/3B with an extent of Ac.28.87 cents.

He further submits that the land admeasuring Ac.40.00 cents in survey No

547/3 was taken over by the Respondents since it is earmarked as

agricultural surplus land in C.C.No.1459/75 dated 12.05.1997 and

remaining extent of land is under possession of the Ryots. It is further

stated that the unofficial respondents herein neither held any piece of land

nor in enjoyment in respect of the land survey No.547/3B in an extent of NV,J

Ac.22.95 cents of Adavi Village, Bapatla Mandal and they also failed to prove

their occupation and nature of rights and also enjoyment of the land.

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents

submits that the impugned order passed by Respondent No.3 is in

accordance with the orders of this Court dated 13.02.2014. He further

submits that while disposing of the writ petition No.29598 of 2011, this

Court did not direct for issuance of any notice to the petitioners herein. As

such the petitioners cannot found fault with the impugned orders dated

01.07.2016 passed by Respondent No.3. He further submits that the

petitioners acquired the alleged subject land in survey No.547/3A out of

Ac.40.00 cents which was declared as surplus land by the original land

holders in C.C.No.1459/B/75 dated 21.08.1981. Therefore, the petitioners

do not have any rights / title over the subject land. He further submits that

after gone through the documents submitted by unofficial respondents i.e.

unregistered documents dated 15.05.1972 and registered partition deed

dated 02.07.1957. (vide document No.2781 of 1957). The title of the

unofficial respondents was traced by Respondent No.3 and after satisfaction

only the impugned proceedings were issued in favour of the unofficial

respondents and directed to cancel the pattadar pass books issued in favour

of the one Sri Veera Venkata Krishna Mohan only but not issued in favour of

the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any notice

since they are holding their rights in respect of Survey No.547/3A and as

such they are not entitled any notice apart from due procedure as

contemplated under the Act and also as claimed by them. Therefore, the NV,J

impugned order passed by Respondent No.3 is in accordance with law as

well as in compliance of the orders of this Court, as such the impugned

order is valid and does not warrants any interference. Therefore, the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners,

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue and M/s. Ch. Dhanamjaya,

learned senior counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 and perused

the material placed on record.

14. Having passed the impugned order dated 01.07.2016 is liable to be

set-aside on two grounds. First one is that Respondent No.3 passed the

impugned order contrary to the directions of this Court dated 13.02.2014

wherein Respondent No.3 was specifically directed to pass orders upon the

representations of the petitioners in accordance with law. The second one is

that the proceedings are also contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1971. As

per the provisions of the Act before holding any Rights of any claimant,

Respondent No.3 is under obligation to issue notices to all the stake holders,

more particularly to the petitioners herein who were issued pattadar pass

books and land title deeds as admitted by the unofficial respondents in their

writ petition by stating that the pattadar pass books and title deeds were

issued in favour of third parties in respect of their property. Therefore, the

order passed by Respondent No.3 dated 01.07.2016 is liable to be set-aside.

15. On 13.02.2014 this Court directed Respondent No.3 to pass orders in

accordance with law on the representation submitted by the petitioners NV,J

therein and unofficial respondents herein. As such, Respondent No.3 is

under obligation to follow due procedure as contemplated under the Act.

Section 5(3) of the Act, 1971 is extracted here under, for better appreciation

of the case:

"5(3). The Mandal Revenue Officer shall, before carrying out any

amendment in the record of rights under sub-section (1) or sub-

section (2) issue a notice in writing to all persons whose names are

entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected

by the amendment and to any other persons whom he has reason to

believe to be interested therein or affected thereby to show cause

within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should

not be carried out. A copy of the amendment and notice aforesaid

shall also be published in such manner as may be prescribed. The

Mandal Revenue Officer shall consider every objection made in that

behalf and after making such enquiry as may be prescribed pass

such order in relation thereto as he deems fit."

16. On the bare reading of Section 5(3) of the Act, 1971, the Tahsildar i.e.

Respondent No.3 is under obligation to issue prior notice in writing to all the

persons whose names are entered in the records of rights or interested

parties or whose rights may have been affected while carrying out the

amendment.

17. In the present case, it appears that Respondent No.3 neither issued

any notice in writing nor published notice as prescribed under the Act, NV,J

1971. Therefore, the impugned proceedings issued by Respondent No.3

dated 01.07.2016 is contrary to the provisions of the Act as stated above

and also contrary to the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.29598 of 2011,

dated 13.02.2014.

18. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

petitioners through their previous predecessors they have been possession

and enjoyment of the subject land admeasuring Acres 28.87 cents in survey

No.547/3B since 1986 and their possession was also proved since they were

registered with coastal aqua zone authority for cultivating their lands as

prawn culture farms vide proceedings dated 04.08.2008 is valid and

acceptable, in view of the acquisition of lands by petitioners as well their

predecessors through separate registered sale deeds executed since 1986,

1988 and 1991.

19. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that

possession of the petitioners in respect of land admeasuring Ac.28.87 cents

is evidenced from the revenue records as well as from the record of the

coastal aqua Zone authority in proceedings dated 04.08.2008 is valid and

liable to be upheld, in view of the title deeds since 1986, 1988 and 1991

apart from revenue records which are evidencing the possession of the

property of the petitioners and also proceedings issued by Coastal Aqua

Authority dated 04.08.2008.

20. The contention of the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents

that the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have inherited the land admeasuring NV,J

Ac.22.95 cents in Survey no. 547/3B by virtue of inheritance from their

father Sri Venkaiah Chowdary who acquired the property by way of

inheritance as adopted son of one Smt. Alaparthi Rattamma who is original

pattadar and absolute owner of the land admeasuring Ac.22.95 cents in

survey No.547/3B by way of unregistered will dated 15.05.1972 and vide

registered partition deed No.2781/1957 are to be considered, subject to the

validity and genuineness of the said documents.

21. As per the averments made in the counter-afidavit that the unofficial

respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.130 of 2017 on the file of III Additional

District Judge, Guntur for permanent injunction against the petitioners

herein and also filed I.A.No.762 of 2017 in O.S.No130 of 2017 dated

10.04.2017 wherein the Court below was pleased to pass an interim

injunction in favour of the unofficial respondents and against the petitioners

which indicates the petitioners herein are interested / affected parties in

respect of the subject property, as such Respondent No.3 herein is under

obligation to follow the due procedure as contemplated under Section 5(3) of

the Act, 1971

22. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue in their counter affidavit

specifically admitted that the unofficial respondents are neither the title

holders nor they are in possession and enjoyment of the land of Ac.22.95

cents in Survey No.547/3B, Adavi Village, Bapatla Mandal has to be

considered and also proves that the unofficial respondents are not in

possession and enjoyment of the same.

NV,J

23. According to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the

unofficial respondents, the entire subject land is in Survey No. 547/3 is an

extent of Ac.68.87 cents. The said survey number was divided as 547/3A

and 547 /3B, consisting of Ac.40.00 cents and Ac.28.87 cents respectively.

Land of an extent of Ac.40.00 cents in Survey No.547/3A was taken over by

the state since it is agricultural surplus land and in respect of land in

Survey No.547/3B pattas were granted but the unofficial respondents are

claiming only 22.95 cents out of Ac. 28.87 cents in survey No.547/3B. But

there is no explanation regarding remaining Ac.5.92 cents, whereas the

petitioners herein specifically claiming the remaining land of Ac.28.87 cents

and they proved their possession and enjoyment of land since 1986 through

registered title deeds holding by them and their predecessors apart from

Revenue Records as well as coastal aqua authority proceedings.

24. It is also fact that the entire land of Ac.40.00 cents in Survey

No.547/3A was occupied by the Government and public offices. Therefore,

the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the remaining

land i.e. Ac.28.87 cents in Survey No.547/3B.

25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned proceedings issued

by Respondent No.3 are not valid and unsustainable since they are contrary

to the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Act,1971 and also in violation of

orders of this Court in W.P.No.29598 of 2011 dated 13.02.2014. Hence the

impugned proceedings dated 01.07.2016 are liable to be set-aside.

NV,J

26. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the following directions:

(i) The action of Respondent No.3 in issuing proceedings dated

01.07.2016 in Rc.No.459/2011/A is declared as illegal and arbitrary;

(ii) The proceedings in Rc.No.459/2011/A dated 01.07.2016 are

hereby set-aside and all the other consequential proceedings if any are

also set-aside.

(iii) Hence, the official respondents and unofficial respondents are

hereby restrained from interference of the subject land held by the

petitioners.