Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
T.V.A.N.Sharma Died vs The Primary Tribunalcumspecial Deputy ... on 6 November, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATJ
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION NO: 7103 OF 2016
Between:
1. T.V.A.N.Sharma (died), S/o. late Janardhana Swami, Hindu, aged 75
years, R/at First Floor, Shivajyothi Enclave, Ayyakoneru North Bund,
VIZIANAGARAM - 535 202. A.P.
2. T.Vijayalakshmi W/o late T.V.A.N.Sharma, Aged about 68 years,
Hindu, R/o B-809, Western Plaza Apartments,Manikonda, Hyderabad
3. T.Gopal, S/o Late T.V.A.N.Sharma, Aged about 68 years, Hindu, R/o B-
809, Western Plaza Apartments,Manikonda, Hyderabad.
4. Emani Bhavani, W/o E.Sreerama Murthy, Aged 48 years, G- 2, Om
jaisari Surya Homes, Near St. Ann s High School,Sai Nagar Colony,
Madinaguda, Hyderabad -500049.
5. Y. Madhavi Latha, W/o Y.Raja Sekhar, Aged 43 years, D.No. 11-1-167,
Plot No.167,Saipriya Colony, Dammaiguda, Hyderabad -500083.
(Petitioner Nos 2 to 5 are brought on record as L.Rs of the deceased sole
petitioner as per the Court Order dt.08.08.2024 vide orders passed in
I.A.No. 01 of2018.)
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. The Primary Tribunal-cum-Special Deputy Tahsildar, (Inams), Revenue
Division, Visakhapatnam.
2. Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. A.P.
r
3. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam , A.P.,
4. The State of Andhra Pradesh reptd. by its Principal, Secretary, Revenue
Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. Telengana State.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a
writ in the nature of Mandamus to declare the proceedings of the 1st
respondent in A.I.P.1/2015 dt. 06.8.2015 rejecting the application of the
petitioner to enquire into and determine the nature of the Inam lands of the
petitioner in Sangivalasa Agraharam village of prang Bheemunipatnam
Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist. u/s 3(1) of the AP (Andhra Area) Inams
Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956 hailing that it was already
acquired under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 as illegal
arbitrary and void and further direct the respondent to enquire into the
matter de novo u/s 3(1) of the AP (Andhra Area) lawns Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016fWPMP. NO: 9066 OF 2016)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may
be pleased to expedite the hearing of the Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI M S R SUBRAHMANYAM
Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.7103 of 2016
Between
T.V.A.N.Sharma(Died)
T.Vijayalakshmi & Others Petitioners
And
The Primary Tribunal-cum-Special Deputy Tahsildar(lnams),
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 1®* respondent in A.I.P.No.1 of 2015 dated 06.08.2015 rejecting the
application of the petitioner (Mr.T.V.A.N.Sharma) to enquire into and
determine the nature of the subject matter lands, which are situated in
Sangivalasa 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 1®' 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.
NJS,J ^
WP_7103_2016 ■ T
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.
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.9 of Sanghivalasa Agraharam Vilalge
situated in the present Bheemunipatnam Mandal of Visakhapatnam
District are Inam lands and the name of the writ petitioners' great
grandfather Mr.Tadeparthi Janardhan Swamy was recorded as one of the
Inamdars in Survey No.12 in the Inam Fair Register and Inam B Register
of Sanghivalasa Agraharam Village. He submits that as the writ petitioner
is the legal heir of the said Tadeparthi Janardhan Swamy and entitled to a
Ryotwari patta under the Inams Abolition Act, an application was made
before the 1®' respondent to determine the nature of the lands in T.D.No.9
of Sanghivalasa Agraharam Village. He submits that the 1 respondent
had taken the application on file and issued Form-1 Notice to the 3'''^
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.28268 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 the 1"' respondent to pass a fresh order,
after giving the writ petitioner, opportunity of being heard.
3
4r NJS,J
WP_7103 2016
4. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the above said Order
dated 15.04.2014, the 1®* respondent issued a Notice dated 16.02.2015 to
the writ petitioner and in reply to the same, a detailed explanation was
submitted on 27.03.2015. He submits that the 1®' respondent without
considering the explanation / reply of the writ petitioner by taking an
erroneous view, rejected the application of the petitioners' vide Order
dated 06.08.2015 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 1®' respondent rejected the
application of the petitioner on the premise that the Sangivalasa
Agraharam Village was already notified and taken over by the
Government under Section 1(4) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948. He
submits that in fact, the said G.O., was set aside by a Division Bench of
the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Prsidesh in the case of Neelapu
Chinna Appanna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh\ 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 of the writ petitioner
obviously with reference to the said G.O., which was already quashed
reflects lack of application of mind by the 1®' respondent. He submits that
^ 1965 (1) Andhra Weekly Reporter 300
4
NJS,J _ ^
WP_7103_2016
the said decision had attained finality. The learned counsel submits that
as the order under challenge is passed without examining the claim of the
petitioner and in a casual manner without mentioning any Government
Order notifying the land and taking over of the same, the writ petition may
be allowed by setting aside the impugned order and a direction be issued
to the 1®' respondent to examine the matter afresh. He had also drawn the
attention of this Court to the relevant portion of the said G.O., wherein the
Sangivalasa 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 contended
that the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has to work out
his remedies against impugned order before the appropriate Forum. He
submits that though it was simply mentioned that as per the official
records viz.. Old Gazette, it was found that Sangivalasa Agraharam
Village was already notified and taken over by the Government under
I
Section 1(4) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948, as seen from the G.O.Ms.,
No.2148, Sanghivalasa Agraharam Village is also one of the Inam
Estates notified in the said G.O., a reading of the same, would lead to an
irresistible conclusion that the 1®' respondent rejected the application of
the petitioner with reference to the G.O.Ms.No.2148 mentioned above.
7. This Court has considered the submissions made with reference to
the material available on record. It is not in dispute that earlier the
V
5
NJS,J
WP_7103_2016
petitioner filed W.P.No.28268 of 2011 and pursuant to the orders passed
in the said writ petition, after issuing notice, the 1 respondent passed the
order under challenge. From a reading of the said order, it is discernible
that the same was passed solely in a casual manner and 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 Appanna 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
under 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.
9. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the order
under challenge was passed without any valid basis much less by
application of mind. 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.
6
NJS,J
WP 7103 2016
• T
10.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, the order under challenge is
unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The 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 1®* 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. No
costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAJU
//TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
^^/SECTI*^ OFFICER
To,
1.
The Primary Tribunal-cum-Special Deputy Tahsildar, (Inams), Revenue
Division, Visakhapatnam.
2. Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. A.P.
3. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam , A.P.,
4.
The State of Andhra Pradesh reptd. by its Principal, Secretary, Revenue
Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. Telengana State.
5.
One CC to SRI. M. S. R. SUBRAHMANYAM, Advocate [OPUC]
6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
[OUT]
7. Three C.D.Copies
nm
HIGH COURT
DATED:06/11/2024
ORDER
x
O
2 0 NOV 202^ m ,
^ Current Section ^
£SsPATCV^^r^'^
ALLOWING THE WP
WITHOUT COSTS
