Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nandigam Bhaskara Rao, vs Dhomathoti Meramma, on 3 October, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
1
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.No.569 of 2021
APHC010328112021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF COTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 569/2021
Between:
NandigamBhaskara Rao, ...APPELLANT
AND
Dhomathoti Meramma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. SITA RAM CHAPARLA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P N MURTHY
Dt: 03.10.2024
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The Court made the following Judgment:
Heard Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Sri P.N. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to
6.
RRR,J & HN,J
2. The respondents 1 to 6 filed W.P.No.16173 of 2021. The case of
the respondents 1 to 6 was that the land admeasuring Ac.1.20 cents in
R.S.No.303/7 of Gopavaram Village, Musunuru Mandal, Krishna District had
been purchased by their ancestors, under a registered deed of sale, dated
22.11.1960, and the said land was being used for community purpose by the
people of the Harijanapeta of Gopavaram Village. It was contended that the
said land was not fit for cultivation and was being used to conduct Gonthemma
festival. Apart from this, certain statuesare there on the land and a bus shelter
was also constructed and part of the land was being used for people to answer
calls of nature.
3. Respondents 1 to 6 have approached this Court on the ground that
the official respondents, at the behest of some politicians and others, were
seeking to evict them from the said land, without following any procedure
established under law and to protect their interests.
4. This Writ Petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of
this Court, by an order dated 10.08.2021. The learned Single Judge after
considering the instructions of the Tahsildar, dated 09.08.2021, produced by
the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, had disposed of the
writ petition in the following manner:
"In view of the written instructions placed on record, no further
adjudication is required in this matter as the respondents are not
interfering and trying to remove the statues, thereby, no direction need
be issued, recording the submission of learned Assistant Government
RRR,J & HN,J
Pleader for Revenue. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a
direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners, except
by due process of law, as the petitioners are the owners of the subject
property as their ancestors purchased the property under registered
sale deed referred supra, which is being used for communal purpose of
Harijanavada. There shall be no order as to costs."
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein filed the present
appeal after obtaining the leave of the Court.
6. The appellant contends that he is the owner of the said Ac.1.20
cents of land in Sy.No.303/7 and that the respondents 1 to 6 have no right, title
or claim over the said land. He contends that the land in Sy.No.303 was to an
extent of Ac.2.40 cents, out of which, Ac.1.20 cents of land was sold, by way
of a deed of sale, dated 17.11.1959, registered as Document No.3392 of 1959
and the remaining Ac.1.20 cents of land was sold to one Sri Nandigam Sita
Ramaiah, by way of a deed of sale dated 09.09.1960, registered as Document
No.2821 of 1960. He contends that the third deed of sale, under which the
respondents 1 to 6 are claiming title and ownership, is an invalid deed of sale
as the vendors, in the said deed of sale, did not have any land left to sell in
survey No.303/7. The appellant also states that some attempts had been
made to evict him from the land in his possession and he had approached this
Court, by way of W.P.No.3698 of 2021, and similarly he had also approached
this Court, by way of W.P.No.8324 of 2021 as his application for fixation of
boundaries was not being considered. The appellant contends that the
respondent 1 to 6, being fully aware of his claim over the property, had
RRR,J & HN,J
deliberately suppressed these facts and had approached this Court with
unclean hands.
7. Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant would submit that the respondents 1 to 6 were fully aware of the right
and title of the appellant over the land and the same canbe seen from caveat
petition filed by the appellant, before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid
against the appellant and two others on 17.09.2020. Sri Sita Ram Chaparla
would contend that the respondents 1 to 6, having filed a caveat, on account of
the claim of the appellant, had deliberately suppressed these facts when they
had filed the writ petition and did not inform the Court about the rival claim of
the appellant nor make him a party to the writ petition.
8. Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the appellant, also
submits that there were suits filed earlier, in relation to this property, under
which his predecessors in title had also obtained orders of injunction.
9. The primary objection of the appellant appears to be the
observation of the learned Sigle Judge that the respondents 1 to 6 are the
owners of the land. Sri Sita Ram Chaparla submits that the said observation
prejudices the interests of the appellant as any claim made by the appellant in
any proceeding would be clouded by the aforesaid observations of the learned
Single Judge.
RRR,J & HN,J
10. Sri P.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6 would
submit that the deed of sale, of 1960, was a registered deed of sale which
confers title on the respondents 1 to 6. He would further submit that the land in
question is barren land which is unsuitable for agriculture and contains
statues, bus shelter and is being for community purpose. He would submit that
a simple inspection of the land would show that the contention of the appellant
that the land is agricultural land, is false. He would further contend that the
appellant had already sold Ac.0.30 cents of land in the year 2020 to various
persons, who have filed I.A.No.1 of 2024, to implead themselves on the
ground that they were subsequent purchasers whose interest would be
affected. Sri P.N. Murthy would contend that the appellant had deliberately
suppressed these facts and has approached this Court with unclean hands.
11. Sri P.N. Murthy would also contend that the respondents 1 to 6
were aggrieved by the actions of the official respondents in seeking to evict
them and had approached this Courton that basis. He would submit that in
such circumstances, the question of impleading the appellant, against whom
they had no complaint, as far as writ petition is concerned, would not arise nor
was the appellant a necessary party for determination of the writ petition.
RRR,J & HN,J
Consideration of the Court:
12. A perusal of the record and the submissions made by both sides,
makes it clear that there are disputes, to the title to the land in question,
between respondents 1 to 6 on one side and the appellant on the other.
13. The appellant, contends that the deed of sale of 1960, relied upon
by the respondents 1 to 6, which had been mentioned in the operative part of
the order of the learned Single Judge, is an invalid document. The
respondents 1 to 6 deny this contention. These are disputed facts which
cannot be decided by this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
14. However, this Court would have to accept the contention of the
appellant that the observations of the learned Single Judge, to the extent of
confirming ownership over the land, in favour of respondents 1 to 6 would
prejudice the appellant as such a finding would effectively preclude any
independent decision on the question of title of the said Ac.1.20 cents of land.
15. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of by holding that the
observation of the learned Single Judge, in the operative part of the order
extracted above, to the effect that the petitioners are the owners of the subject
property as their ancestors purchased the property under a registered sale
deed referred supra, which is being used for community purpose of
Harijanawada, shall not be taken into account in the event of any proceedings
RRR,J & HN,J
or disputes between the appellant and the respondents 1 to 6, in relation to the
said land in survey No. 303/7.
16. This Court also hastens to add that this order shall not be taken to
mean that this Court has taken a view on the ownership or possession of the
land in favour of either the appellant or the respondents 1 to 6.
17. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
______________
HARINATH.N,J
RJS
RRR,J & HN,J
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
&
HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dt:03.10.2024
RJS
