Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Tugu Prabhakar Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 2 January, 2024

Author: R. Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
                            &
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                    Writ Appeal No.1312 of 2023

 Tugu Prabhakar Reddy, S/o Tugu Rama Swamy Reddy,
 Aged about 57 years, Occ. Agriculturalist,
 R/o Mattavandla Palli,
 Thamballapalli Village & Mandal,
 Chittoor District.
                                                        ... Appellant
                               Versus

 The State of Andhra Pradesh,
 Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
 Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat,
 Amaravati, Guntur District & others.

                                                      ...Respondents

Mr. P. Narahari Babu, Counsel for the appellant.

Government Pleader for Revenue, Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to

Mr. G. Venkata Reddy, Standing Counsel for respondent No.6.

Mr. K. Sambasiva Rao, Counsel for respondent No.7.

M/s Pillix Law Firm, Counsel for respondent No.8.

Dt.:02.01.2024

PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR (CJ) (Oral):

The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against

the judgment and order, dated 07.12.2023, passed in W.P.

No.23568 of 2020. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, 2 HCJ & RRR,J WA.No.1312_2023

the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant herein, has

been dismissed on the ground of locus.

2. Briefly stated, the material facts are that the appellant

herein filed the writ petition before the learned single Judge

seeking to highlight the inaction of the official respondents in not

initiating action against private respondent Nos.7 and 8, who

according to the petitioner were illegally selling Government lands

as house sites and laying unauthorised colonies without having any

valid title and ownership on the property.

It was also alleged that the private respondents did not have

any valid title and ownership on the property situate in Sy.Nos.360-

B/1A2A3A, 1A2A3 and 1A2A3B in Thamballapalli Village in

Chittoor District. The action of the private respondents was

allegedly in violation of the procedure contemplated under the

Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and

Building) Rules, 2002. In that background, the petitioner had

sought writ of mandamus against the official respondents directing

them to take necessary action against private respondents in that

regard.

3. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the writ

petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge holding that the 3 HCJ & RRR,J WA.No.1312_2023

petitioner had failed to establish that there was any judicially

enforceable right and therefore declined to issue the mandamus, as

had been prayed for by the petitioner. Reliance was placed upon the

Apex Court judgments in State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra1, Union of

India v. S.B. Vohra2 and Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal

Jain3 to hold that it was imperative for the petitioner to establish

not only the existence of a legal right but also a corresponding legal

duty on the part of the official respondents before a writ of

mandamus could be sought for, in exercise of the powers vested in

the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. On a perusal of the pleadings on record, it can be seen

that the petitioner had highlighted the alleged violation in regard to

land situate in Sy.Nos.360-B/1A2A3A, 1A2A3 and 1A2A3B in

Thamballapalli Village in Chittoor District. The reply affidavit filed

by the Government, on the other hand, specifically stated that land

measuring Ac. 25.87 cents falling in Sy. No.360-B was classified as

patta lands in Thamballapalle Village, out of which, an extent of Ac.

4.53 cents in Sy. No.360-B/3B and other Ac. 11.30 cents in Sy. No.

360-B/1A2A3A had been permitted for use of non-agricultural

purposes.

(1996) 9 SCC 309

(2004) 2 SCC 150

(2008) 2 SCC 280 4 HCJ & RRR,J WA.No.1312_2023

Apart from this, land to the extent of Ac. 4.53 cents falling

under Sy. No.360-B/3B was sought to be converted under the A.P.

Land Conversion Act, 2005, by its owner Sri T. N. Aravinda Reddy

as per Rules, which permission was granted by the concerned

authority. Land measuring Ac. 11.30 cents, as discussed

hereinabove, had also been permitted to be converted on the basis

of an application having been filed by its owner Sri T.N. Jayasuri

Reddy.

Apart from this, it is stated that out of the entire land

discussed above, land measuring Ac.1.68 cents only was classified

as Government land and had been subdivided as Sy. No.360-

B/1A2B1, out of which, one acre was allotted to A.P. SCSC Ltd (Civil

Supplies Godown/MLS Point), whereas land to the extent of Ac.

0.50 cents was allotted to Rythu Bazaar, whereas land measuring

Ac. 0.18 cents had been retained as Government land. The reply-

affidavit further states that the petitioner without verifying the

above facts had made allegations in the writ petition which were

without any basis. The allegation to the extent that land also

belonged to a temple was also denied. In any case, from the record it

appears that the temple authorities had not been incorporated as

party respondent.

5 HCJ & RRR,J WA.No.1312_2023

5. On a perusal of the stand reflected in the reply-affidavit

filed by the State, it, therefore, appears that the plea of the

petitioner on facts was totally misplaced even on merits.

6. Insofar as the issue of locus of the petitioner is

concerned, reliance placed by the learned single Judge on various

authorities was quite apt.

Apart from the above, in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan

Kumar and others4, the petitioner had challenged the grant of a No

Objection Certificate issued by the District Magistrate in favour of

the owners of a site, who had filed an application under Rule 3 of

the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954, for grant of a certificate that there

was no objection to the erection of a cinema theatre at that site. The

District Magistrate held that the No Objection Certificate should be

refused whereas the State Government did not agree with the

recommendations of the District Magistrate and directed the latter

to grant the certificate, which was subsequently granted.

In the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court held as

follows:

AIR 1976 SC 578 6 HCJ & RRR,J WA.No.1312_2023

""47. In the light of the above discussion, it is demonstrably clear that the appellant has not been denied or deprived of a legal right. He has not sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In fact, the impugned order does not operate as a decision against him, much less does it wrongfully affect his title to something. He has not been subjected to a legal wrong. He has suffered no legal grievance. He has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on. Therefore he is not a 'person aggrieved' and has no locus standi to challenge the grant of the No-objection Certificate."

7. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgments to the

facts and circumstances of the present case, in our opinion, the

learned single Judge had rightly come to the conclusion that the

appellant herein was not a person aggrieved and therefore did not

have any locus to pray for a writ of mandamus against the official

respondents.

8. Be that as it may, we cannot persuade ourselves to take

the view different from the one taken by the learned single Judge in

the judgment and order impugned. The appeal is found to be

without any merit and, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J