Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Sri V Nagaraju vs The State Of Ap on 4 January, 2024

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

                MAIN CASE No.W.P.No.33459 of 2023
                           PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                             Office
No      DATE                                ORDER                               Note


03    04.01.2024 RC,J
                                W.P.No.33459 of 2023
                        Notice before admission.
                        The   Learned         Government        Pleader   for
                Revenue takes notice for respondent nos.1 to 6.

The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice on respondent nos.7 to10 by registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service in the Registry.

Post on 24.01.2024 in motion list.

                                                                  __________
                                                                    RC, J


                        The    relief       sought     in   the     present

Interlocutory Application is to suspend the operation of the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Kuppam, vide D.Dis/D/235/2023 and D.Dis/D/236/2023 dated 27.11.2023.

Heard Sri S.S.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

Contd...

Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration submitted that pursuant to the application made by the unofficial respondents, the Revenue Divisional Officer vide impugned proceedings granted permission to them for conversion of agriculture land into non- agricultural land, in clear violation of Rule 7 of Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural purposes) Rules, 2018, which envisages that the concerned authority has to conduct a full enquiry before passing conversion proceedings. The Revenue Divisional officer, knowing pretty well that the petitioner has interest in subject property and ignoring the fact that a suit filed by him against the unofficial respondents is pending before the competent Civil Court, has issued the conversion proceedings and pursuantly the respondents are creating third party interests by selling the plots and it is learnt that some plots were already sold.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that having learnt that the unofficial respondents moved an application for conversion, the petitioner got issued a legal notice for which, the unofficial respondents had given a belated reply two (02) months after receipt of the notice raising untenable grounds that too after passing of conversion proceedings. The conversion proceedings show that a report of Contd...

the Deputy Tahsildar and the Tahsildar were called for. The Deputy Tahsildar had given a report stating that the application cannot be considered and the Tahsildar asked the Revenue Divisional Officer to take a decision. While passing impugned proceedings, the Revenue Divisional Officer had relied on the recommendation made by the District Collector and attention of this Court was drawn to the relevant portion of the impugned proceedings. In fact, the Joint Collector is the Appellate Authority as per Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non- Agricultural purposes) Act, 2006. Since the impugned proceedings were issued basing on the recommendations of the superior to the Appellate Authority, the constitutional right to prefer appeal has been lost. As such, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the District Collector, being an Appellate Authority, cannot direct the Revenue Divisional Officer for consideration of the conversion application of the unofficial respondents. If the impugned proceedings are allowed to continue, it would not only affect the rights of the petitioner but would also create third party interest over the subject property, which would multiply and would unnecessarily enlarge the scope of the litigation. Accordingly, Contd...

prayed to pass appropriate reasonable orders protecting the interests of the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that the petitioner having approached the competent Civil Court failed to obtain any injunction orders. Further, Land Grabbing OP filed by the petitioner is also pending adjudication. When there are no injunction orders from the competent Civil Court, the mere filing and pendency of Civil proceedings is not an impediment to pass the impugned proceedings. The petitioner, who knocked the doors of Civil Court, instead of obtaining appropriate orders in the pending suit, filed this Writ Petition as parallel proceedings, which is not permissible. However, a detailed counter is required to be filed and sought time. He further submitted that notices have to be ordered to the unofficial respondents in the present Writ Petition.

In response to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the suit filed was dismissed for default and application filed for its restoration was allowed and accordingly the suit was restored to file. Thereafter, as the Advocates are abstaining Court work in protest of the Andhra Pradesh Land Titling Act, the petitioner could not move or press for any interim orders in the pending suit. Even otherwise, the reliefs sought in the suit and Contd...

in this Writ Petition are entirely different and by no stretch of imagination this Writ Petition can be termed as a proceeding parallel to the suit.

He further submitted that since the impugned proceedings have been issued in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner can maintain this Writ Petition. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the (2020) 9 SCC 356, (1981) 1 SCC 664 & (1988) 4 SCC 452 and accordingly prayed to suspend the impugned proceedings.

A perusal of the record goes to show that the unofficial respondents made an application for conversion of the subject land from agricultural to non-agricultural land. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after enquiry passed orders vide D.Dis/D/235/2023 dated 27.11.2023 permitting the unofficial 8th respondent to convert the land from agriculture to non-agriculture.

It is no doubt true that the suit filed by the petitioner against unofficial respondents for declaration and injunction vide O.S.No.85 of 2003 is pending adjudication. Undisputedly, the Land Grabbing case filed by the petitioner against the respondents in relation to the subject property is also pending.

It is the main flank of argument of the Contd...

learned counsel for the petitioner that pendency

of the proceedings before competent Courts debars the Revenue Divisional Officer from passing the impugned orders. The said contention does not deserve any consideration. It is relevant here to note that though the suit is of the year 2003 and more than 20 years have elapsed since its inception, the petitioner could not get any orders from the concerned Court injuncting the unofficial respondents from alienating or meddling with the property. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he could not get orders of injunction on account of abstaining of Courts by Advocates is not acceptable; since the same is a development of very recent origin and that would not have prevented the petitioner for the last 20 years.

Therefore, this Court thought it fit to issue notice to the unofficial respondents in order to dispose of this application after giving them an opportunity of being heard, however, since the learned counsel for the petitioner persisted to pass ex parte orders, this Court, proceeded on to examine the merits of this Interlocutory Application.

It is inexplicable as to why the petitioner could not get any orders deterring either the unofficial respondents or the authorities from the meddling with the property by way of conversion and as to why the petitioner instead of moving Contd..

an appropriate application in the pending suit had filed this Writ Petition in respect of the same subject property.

Keeping in view the factum of absence of any injunction orders for the last 20 years, this Court is of the firm view that this is not a fit case to grant ex parte interim orders of suspension, by dispensing with notice to the unofficial respondents. Further, as to whether a notice has to be sent to the petitioner before entertaining the conversion application and whether there was non-adherence of the provisions of the Act while passing the impugned orders, a detailed counter of both the official and unofficial respondents is very much required.

In light of the facts and circumstances stated supra, this Court is not inclined to grant ex parte orders of suspension of the impugned proceedings.

Issue notice of this petition to the unofficial respondents and post with petition along with the main writ petition on 24.01.2024.

__________ RC, J Note:-