Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
T.V.A.N.Sharma S/O Late Janardhana ... vs The Primary Tribunalcumspecial Deputy ... on 6 November, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.6528 of 2016
Between:-
T.V.A.N.Sharma(died)
T.Vijayalakshmi & others .... Petitioners
And
The Primary Tribunal-cum-Special Deputy Tahsildar(Inams),
Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam & Others ..... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Mr.M.S.R.Subrahmanyam
Counsel for the respondents : Government Pleader for Revenue
The Court made the following ORDER:
The present writ petition is flied aggrieved by the proceedings of
the 1st respondent in A.I.P.No.2 of 2015 dated 29.06.2015 rejecting the
application of the writ petitioner (Mr.T.V.A.N.Sharma) to enquire into and
determine the nature of the subject matter lands, which are situated in
Rushikonda Agraharam Village of present Bheemunipatnam Mandal on
the premise that the same were already acquired under the provisions of
the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for a
consequential direction to the 1st respondent to enquire into the matter
de-novo under Section 3(1) of the A.P.(Andhra Area) Inams Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956.
2. Heard Mr.M.Bala Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the
petitioners i.e., legal representatives of the deceased writ petitioner and
the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents.
NJS,J
WP_6528_2016
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions, inter
alia, referring to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the
writ petition and the facts which led to the filing of the same. He submits
that the lands covered by T.D.No.1245 of Rushikonda Agraharam
situated in the present Visakhapatnam Rule Mandal of Visakhapatnam
District are Inams lands and the name of the writ petitioners' great
grandfather Mr.Tadiparthi Janardhana Swamy was recorded as one of
the Inamdars in Survey No.19 in the Inam Fair Register and Inam 'B'
Register of Rushikonda Village. He submits that as the writ petitioner is
the legal heir of the said Tadiparthi Janardhan Swamy and entitled to a
Ryotwari Patta under the Inam Abolition Act, an application was made
before the 1st respondent to determine the nature of the lands in
T.D.No.1254 of Rushikonda Agraharam. He submits that the 1st
respondent had taken the application on file, issued Form-I Notice to the
3rd respondent and initially passed an Order dated 02.07.2011 rejecting
the application without giving any opportunity to the writ petitioner.
Challenging the same, Writ Petition No.21265 of 2011 was filed and the
learned counsel submits that the same was allowed by an Order dated
15.04.2014 with a direction to pass a fresh order, after giving the writ
petitioner, opportunity of being heard.
4. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the above said Order
dated 15.04.2014, the 1st respondent issued a Notice dated 16.02.2015 to
the writ petitioner and in reply to the same, detailed explanation was
submitted on 27.03.2015. He submits that the 1st respondent without
NJS,J
WP_6528_2016
considering the explanation / reply of the writ petitioner, by taking an
erroneous view rejected the application vide Order dated 29.06.2015
impugned in the present writ petition. Apart from the other submissions,
the learned counsel mainly contends that the order under challenge is not
sustainable as the same was passed on a misconception of factual
position and suffers from non-application of mind.
5. The learned counsel submits that the 1st respondent rejected the
application of the petitioner on the premise that the Rushikonda Village
was already notified and taken over by the Government under Section
1(4) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 as per G.O.Ms.No.2148 Revenue
dated 25.11.1958. He submits that in fact, the said G.O., was set aside by
a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the
case of Neelapu Chinna Appanna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh1.
By virtue of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated
16.07.1964, the learned counsel contends that the rejection of the
application made by the writ petitioner with reference to the non-existent
G.O., reflects lack of application of mind by the 1st respondent. He also
submits that the said decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench had attained
finality. The learned counsel submits that as the order under challenge is
passed without examining the claim of the petitioner, only in the light of
the said G.O.Ms.No.2148 which is not in existence, the writ petition may
be allowed and a direction be issued to the 1st respondent to examine the
matter afresh. He had also drawn the attention of this Court to the
1965 (1) Andhra Weekly Reporter 300
NJS,J
WP_6528_2016
relevant portion of the G.O., wherein the Rushikonda Agraharam is
included in the list of Inams Estates.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
made submissions to sustain the order under challenge. He contends that
the writ petition is not maintainable and that the writ petitioner has to avail
remedies elsewhere.
7. This Court has considered the submissions made with reference to
the material available on record. It is not in dispute that earlier the writ
petitioner filed W.P.No.21265 of 2011 and pursuant to the orders passed
in the said writ petition, after issuing notice, the 1st respondent passed the
order under challenge. From a reading of the said order, it is discernible
that the same was passed solely with reference to G.O.Ms.No.2148 dated
25.11.1958. No other material, much less the explanation submitted by
the petitioner was taken into consideration.
8. In Neelapu Chinna Appaanna Reddy's case referred to supra,
the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh was
dealing with the challenge to the Notification of the Government issued in
G.O.Ms.No.2148, Revenue dated 24.11.1958. After considering the
matter, the Hon'ble Division Bench quashed the said Notification. No
material is placed before this Court, nor was a submission made
contradicting the statement made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the above said decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench,
had attained finality.
NJS,J
WP_6528_2016
9. In the said circumstances, this Court finds merit in the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order under
challenge was passed without application of mind and on the basis of a
G.O., which is not in existence. That apart, the order under challenge also
suffers from non-consideration of the explanation submitted by the writ
petitioner along with the material in support of his claim, which is contrary
to the principles of natural justice.
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the order under challenge is
unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The 1st respondent
is directed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with the law, without
reference to the above said G.O., after giving due opportunity of hearing
to the petitioners and duly taking into consideration the explanation and
material papers already submitted. The 1st respondent shall complete the
said exercise as expeditiously as possible, within a period of eight (8)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________
NINALA JAYASURYA, J
Date: 06.11.2024
BLV
NJS,J
WP_6528_2016
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
Date: 06.11.2024
BLV
