Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Muppalla Suneethamma, vs The State Of A.P., on 25 January, 2024

Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao

Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao

                               ::1::


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::
                      AMARAVATI
              (Special Original Jurisdiction)

   THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY
        TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
                   PRESENT

  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD
                             RAO
             WRIT PETITION NO: 1293 OF 2016
Between:
   1. Muppalla Suneethamma,, W/o Seetharami Reddy, Aged 58
      years, Occ : agriculturist, R/o H.No.6-8-5, Agraharapeta,
      Lakshmi Ananthasagaram, Naidupet, SPSR Nellore District.
                                              ...PETITIONER(S)
                               AND
  1. The State of A.P.,, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
     Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

  2. The Joint Collector, Nellore,, SPSR Nellore District.

  3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,, Naidupet, SPSR Nellore
     District.

  4. The Tahsildar,, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

                                              ...RESPONDENTS


This Court made the following

ORDER:

The challenge in this writ petition is to the order in

D.Dis.(E8) 3531/2015 dated 10.11.2015 passed by the Joint ::2::

Collector, SPSR Nellore District / 2nd respondent confirming

the order in D.Dis (B2)/385/2013 dated 04.06.2015 passed by

the R.D.O, Naidupet Division, SPSR Nellore District / 3rd

respondent ordering the resumption of Ac.2.99 cents of the

land including Ac.0.85 cents of land in Sy.No.81/5 of Lakshmi

Ananthasagaram Village (for short, 'the L.A. Village').

2. The matrix of the petitioner's case, succinctly is thus:

(a) The L.A. Village was a part of Venkatagiri Zamindari

which was notified and taken over under the Estates Abolition

Act, 1948. The subject land in Sy.No.81/5 (old Sy.No.81/3) is a

ryotwari land within the definition of Section 3(16) of the

Estates Land Act. The said land was one of the items of

partition among one Muppalla Subbaraghava Reddy and his four

sons under a registered Partition Deed dated 21.08.1942 by

which, an extent of Ac.1.20 cents in old Sy.No.81/3 was

allocated to said M. Subbaraghava Reddy. On his death, his

wife M.Venkatasubbamma succeeded the said land and after her

death, her son M.Pattabhirami Reddy, who is the father-in-law

of writ petitioner, succeeded.

::3::

(b) The further case of the petitioner is that though it is a

ryoti land and not forming part of the estate and though not

vested in the Government, however, it was wrongly classified as

Unassigned Waste (UW) and recorded as Government land.

Therefore, as an abundant caution M.Pattabhirami Reddy, who

was in possession and enjoyment of the said land, in order to

protect his title and possession, got assigned the said land in

favour of his farm servant viz., Bandi Muthyalaiah. However,

the said Muthyalaiah was never in possession and enjoyment of

said land. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained Agreement of Sale

dated 15.02.1972 from Bandi Muthyalaiah and later obtained

registered Sale Deed dated 29.05.1984 from him. The petitioner

reiterates that in spite of these events, land was originally a

ryotwari land but not the Government land and it has been in

possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's family. The

petitioner's name has been recorded in the Adangals from the

year 1972.

a notice to the petitioner under A.P. Assigned Lands ::4::

(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 [Act 9 of 1977] calling for

explanation for being in possession of the assigned land and

threatened to dispossess her. Questioning the notice, the

petitioner and two others filed W.P.No.12780/1996 before the

High Court of A.P., which was disposed of by an order dated

04.07.1996 with a direction to the then M.R.O, Naidupet to

consider the explanation of the petitioners and pass appropriate

orders and in the meanwhile to maintain status quo regarding

the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. However,

without passing any orders, again the then MRO, Naidupet tried

to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of

the subject lands. Therefore, the petitioner filed civil suit in

O.S.No.232/1997 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Sullurpet

seeking permanent injunction and the same was decreed by

judgment dated 27.03.2001. Challenging the same, the MRO,

Naidupet filed an appeal in A.S.No.38/2001 on the file of the

Senior Civil Judge, Gudur and the same was dismissed on

16.04.2007 confirming the judgment of trial Court.

(d) While so, pending the above appeal, the then M.R.O. ::5::

again issued a notice dated 05.04.2003 for dispossession of the

petitioner and the petitioner sent reply notice dated 07.06.2003

denying the notice allegations. In order to protect the

petitioner's interest, she filed suit in O.S.No.37/2004 on the file

of Senior Civil Judge, Gudur for declaration and consequential

injunction in respect of the subject land against the State of A.P.

and M.R.O, Naidupet. The defendants filed written statement

and contested the suit and ultimately the said suit was decreed in

favour of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 02.11.2011.

Subsequently the petitioner filed representation before the

District Collector, Nellore requesting to treat the subject land as

settlement patta land and issue settlement patta in her favour.

The said representation was forwarded by the Joint Collector,

Nellore to 4th respondent with an endorsement dated 10.09.2012

for necessary action. The 4th respondent obtained the opinion of

the Assistant Government Pleader, Gudur dated 27.12.2012 and

submitted a detailed report in Rc.B.417/1998 dated 20.04.2013

to the District Collector recommending to treat the subject land

as settlement patta land and for issuance of necessary orders in ::6::

favour of the petitioner and the same is pending with the District

Collector, Nellore and no orders have been passed so far.

(e) While so, while the suit O.S.No.37/2004 was pending,

as against the permanent injunction decree passed in favour of

the petitioner in O.S.No.232/1997, an appeal in A.S.No.38/2001

was filed by the M.R.O., Naidupet and the same was dismissed

on 16.04.2007. Thereafter, the District Collector, Nellore vide

letter in D.Dis.(E9)/1183/2008, dated 02.04.2008, directed 4 th

respondent to take immediate action under the provisions of the

Act 9 of 1977 by following due process of law since there was

no ground to the Government to file second appeal before the

High Court against judgment in A.S.No.38/2001. Accordingly,

the 4th respondent issued Forms I and II notices dated

10.04.2008 and the petitioner submitted her explanation. The

4th respondent conducted enquiry and passed a detailed order in

Rc.B.31/2008 dated 17.04.2008 and cancelled the D-Form patta

issued in favour of Bandi Mutyalayya as he died leaving back

no legal heirs and by another order in D.Dis.B/31/2008, dated

17.04.2008 regularized the said land in favour of the petitioner ::7::

as per the provisions of Act 9 of 1977. Thereafter petitioner's

name was mutated in all the revenue records and pattadar

passbook and title deed were also issued in her favour.

(f) While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent passed

an order vide proceedings in D.Dis(B2)/385/2013, dt:

04.06.2015 ordering resumption of petitioner's land along with

other lands under Act 9 of 1977 behind the back of petitioner on

the basis of petition filed by Eega Anjeramma claiming to be the

daughter of Bandi Mutyalaiah. She claimed that an extent of

Ac.2.99 cents in different survey numbers was originally

assigned to her father vide F.Dis.No.1292/70 and after the death

of her parents the said land was under her enjoyment and due to

deficiency of water she migrated to Kalahasthi town for her

livelihood and in the meanwhile one Anuradha and two others

grabbed the said land. She prayed to mutate those lands in her

favour in the revenue records. Originally she filed an appeal

before the RDO, Naidupet for restoration of lands from illegal

occupation of the respondents. However, RDO by order dated

04.06.2015 directed the Tahsildar to resume the lands for ::8::

violation of the provisions of Act 9 of 1977. Hence the said

Eaga Anjeramma filed revision before the 2nd respondent. The

petitioner along with other respondents appeared and filed her

statement. However, without considering the petitioner's

submission and past history relating to the subject land, the 2 nd

respondent confirmed the order of the 3rd respondent.

Hence the writ petition.

3. 4th respondent filed counter contending thus:

(a) Smt. Eega Anjeramma filed petition before 3rd

respondent submitting that her father Mutyalaiah was granted D-

patta for Ac.2.99 cents i.e., Ac.0.87 cents in Sy.No.70/2; Ac.0.67

cents in Sy.No.70/4; Ac.0.24 cents in Sy.No.81/4; Ac.0.96 cents in

Sy.No.81/5 and Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.89/6 in LA Sagaram

Village vide F.Dis.No.1292/70 and after his death the lands were

under her possession and due to scarcity of water she kept the lands

vacant and went away to Srikalahasti to eke out her livelihood and

in the meanwhile the writ petitioner and three others grabbed her

land and thus requested to carry out the mutations in her favour in

the revenue records. The R.D.O took the petition for enquiry and ::9::

directed the 4th respondent to submit a detailed report. After

enquiry the 3rd respondent found the land in an extent of Ac.2.99

cents in different survey numbers was assigned to Mutyalaiah and

he alienated the same in favour of the writ petitioner and 3 others

and thus directed to resume the subject land to Government as per

the provisions of Act 9 of 1977.

(b) Accordingly, notices were issued to the alieneers and N.

Anuradha filed explanation stating that she challenged the order of

3rd respondent before 2nd respondent and requested to defer the

matter until disposal of the appeal. The writ petitioner and others

did not file any appeal.

(c) A revision petition was filed before the 2nd respondent

and after enquiry, the 2nd respondent vide impugned order dated

10.11.2015 upheld the order of 3rd respondent. Accordingly,

resumption order was served on 21.12.2015 and the possession of

the land was taken over under a Panchanama by the Mandal

Revenue Inspector on 23.12.2015.

(d) The subject land is a Government land which was

assigned to Bandi Mutyalaiah and he violated the conditions of ::10::

grant and provisions of Act 9 of 1977. As such, no right or title in

the assigned land shall vest in any person. The Writ petitioner

herself agreed that she purchased the land from Bandi Mutyalaiah

under registered sale deed dated 29.05.1984 in violation of the

provisions under Act 9 of 1977 hence the land was resumed. The

subject property is not the ancestral property of the petitioner and

the contention that it was a subject matter of registered partition

deed dated 21.08.1942 is false. Hence the writ petition may be

dismissed.

4. Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner Sri V.

Sudhakar Reddy and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

5. Severely remonstrating the impugned order dated

10.11.2015, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

neither the 3rd respondent nor the 2nd respondent considered the

explanation of the petitioner in right perspective, inasmuch as, they

failed to appreciate that the subject land is a private land and it

does not fall within the definition of "estate" as per the provisions

of Estate Land Act and Estate Abolition Act and it was not

abolished and taken over by the Government under the provisions ::11::

of Estate Abolition Act. Therefore, the Government cannot claim

that the subject land is a Government land. Learned counsel would

strenuously argue that the subject land and some other lands are the

family property of petitioner's ancestries and as per the registered

partition deed dated 21.08.1942 an extent of Ac.1.20 cents was

allotted to Muppala Subba Raghava Reddy and on his death it fell

to his wife M. Venkata Subbamma and on her death it was

succeeded by her son M. Pattabhi Rami Reddy who is the father-

in-law of the petitioner. Learned counsel argued that since the land

was wrongly classified as Government land, her father-in-law

obtained a D-patta in the name of his binamidar and farm servant

and later the petitioner obtained registered sale deed dated

29.05.1984 from him. Learned counsel would argue that in spite of

these events the land was always a private land and it was under

the possession of the petitioner. He also argued that when

Government interfered with her possession, the petitioner filed

suits and succeeded against the Government. Further, the

Tahsildar, Naidupet vide proceedings dated 17.04.2008 regularized

the possession of the petitioner and issued delivery patta in favour ::12::

of the petitioner by cancelling the D-patta of Bandi Mutyalaiah.

Unfortunately, the respondents 2 and 3 have not considered the

registered partition deed dated 21.08.1942, civil Court judgments

and delivery patta issued in favour of the petitioner in right

perspective. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Revenue argued

that the subject land since inception was a Government land and

even the petitioner herself admits that the father-in-law of the

petitioner got obtained D-patta in the name of Bandi Mutyalaiah

and later the petitioner purchased the said land from him. It shows

that the sale transaction is hit by the provisions of Act 9 of 1977.

He thus argued that the impugned order is perfectly valid and

prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

7. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the

writ petition to allow?

8. Point: I have punctiliously cogitated upon the above

respective contentions. While it is the contention of petitioner that

the subject land covered by Sy.No.81/5 (old Sy.No.81/3) is a

private land and one of the items of ancestral properties of the ::13::

petitioner which was succeeded by petitioner's father-in-law and

later by the petitioner and it was wrongly classified as Government

land after the abolition of Venkatagiri Zamindari though the

subject property was not a part thereof and in order to protect title

and possession of petitioner's family, petitioner's father-in-law

nominally obtained a 'D' patta in favour of Binamidar-cum-farm

servant Bandi Mutyalaiah and later the petitioner obtained

registered Sale Deed from him in the year 1984 and the petitioner

and her predecessors have been in continuous possession of the

subject land and the petitioner also succeeded in the civil litigation

against the Government over the subject property and in

recognition thereof a delivery patta was also issued by the M.R.O.,

Naidupet and in view of the past history, the subject land by no

stretch of imagination can be treated as a Government land, in

oppugnation, the contention of the Government is that the subject

land and other land in the vicinity in an extent of Ac.2.99 cents in

different survey numbers was a Government UW which was

originally assigned to Bandi Muthyalaiah, a landless poor person

and after his death when his daughter Eega Anjeramma for want ::14::

of the irrigation facility, migrated to Srikalahasthi for eking out

her livelihood, the petitioner and others illegally trespassed into

the assigned land and after due enquiry, the R.D.O. has ordered

resumption of the assigned land including the subject land and

said order was confirmed by the Joint Collector, Nellore.

9. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the

respondents 2 and 3 have not considered the crucial documents

of the petitioner i.e., registered Partition Deed of the year 1942,

the delivery patta issued by the M.R.O, Naidupet in favour of the

petitioner recognizing her possession and enjoyment and also the

Pattadar Passbook and Title Deeds granted in her favour and the

Civil Court decrees.

(a) In this context, a perusal of judgment in

O.S.No.37/2004 dated 02.11.2011 passed by learned Senior Civil

Judge, Gudur would show that the petitioner filed the said suit

against the Government seeking declaration of tile and for

consequential injunction in respect of the subject property with

the identical pleadings as now taken in the present writ petition.

The Government have vehemently opposed the suit by filing ::15::

written statement claiming that the suit property is classified as

U.W. dry and it was assigned to Bandi Muthyalaiah, who

alienated the sale in favour of the plaintiff in violation of the

conditions of 'D' form patta. Therefore, the Government

initiated action against plaintiff for resumption of the suit land.

Before trial Court, the petitioner appears to have filed among

others, Ex.A1-C.C. of registered partition Deed dated 21.08.1942

and Ex.A6 - Delivery Assignment patta dated 17.04.2008 and

EsA7-Pattadar Passbook and Ex.A8 - Title Deed to establish

plaintiff's claim. The trial court being satisfied that the

documents filed by the plaintiff showed that the defendants have

regularized the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over

the suit property, decreed the suit as prayed for. It appears no

appeal has been filed by the Government against the said decree

and judgment.

10. While so, a perusal of the impugned order dated

10.11.2015 passed by 2nd respondent shows that having

considered that the assigned land of Ac.2.99 cents was assigned

to Bandi Muthyalaiah and he alienated to different persons ::16::

including petitioner in contravention of the provisions of Act 9

of 1977, and the 2nd respondent ordered resumption of the land.

Eega Anjeramma, who is the daughter of original assignee is

concerned, since she migrated to Kalahasthi long time back, it

held by the 2nd respondent that the land cannot be resumed in her

favour. Ultimately, the 2nd respondent confirmed the orders of

the R.D.O, Naidupet division / 3rd respondent.

(a) A careful scrutiny of this order would show, no where

the 2nd respondent has considered and discussed about the impact

of mentioning of the subject land (Ac.1.20 cents by them) as one

of the family properties and allotted to the share of Muppala

Subbarami Reddy in the registered Partition Deed dated

21.08.1942. So also, the 2nd respondent has not considered the

impact of land delivery patta dated 17.04.2008 issued in favour

of petitioner by the Tahsildar, Naidupeta recognizing her

possession and enjoyment over the subject property. Nor the 2nd

respondent considered the effect of the judgments in

O.S.No.232/1997 and O.S.No.37/2004 which were decreed

against the Government. Therefore, I am constrained to hold ::17::

that while ordering resumption, the 2nd respondent failed to

consider the crucial facts and law and therefore, the impugned

order is vitiated by non-consideration of a relevant facts and law

and hence, the same is not sustainable.

11. Therefore, the impugned order in D.Dis.(E8) 3531/2015

dated 10.11.2015 passed by 2nd respondent is hereby set aside to

the extent of petitioner's claim over the subject land is concerned

and the matter is remitted back to 2nd respondent with a direction

to issue notice to all the parties concerned and after hearing both

parties and considering their respective claims, pass an

appropriate order on merits in accordance with the Governing

law and rules expeditiously but not later than three (3) months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition

shall stand closed.