Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Batchu Ramesh vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, on 20 September, 2024
1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.24625/2012 & 21398/2012
W,P No.21398 of 2012
Between:
# Budda Pydithallamma W/o. Sri Tarakaram
... Petitioner
And
$ 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its
Secretary, Department of Revenue (Endowment-I)
Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 20.09.2024
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may
be allowed to see the Judgments?
- Yes -
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
- Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
- Yes -
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
2
* THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.24625/2012 & 21398/2012
W.P.No.21398 of 2012
% 20.09.2024
# Budda Pydithallamma W/o. Sri Tarakaram
... Petitioner
And
$ 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its
Secretary, Department of Revenue (Endowment-I)
Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Appellant : Smt A.V.S. Laxmi
Counsel for Respondents: AGP for Endowmetns.
Sri E. Sambasiva Pratap
<Gist :
>Head note :
?Cases referred :
3
APHC010358472012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos: 24625/2012 & 21398/2012
WP No.24625/2012
Between:
Batchu Ramesh and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. A V S LAXMI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
2. E SAMBASIVA PRATAP
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER :
WP No.24625 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, for the following relief:
"...... to issue any Writ order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
the action of the Respondents in not regularising of petitioners occupation of the land to an
extent of 200 sq yards each in S No.275 of Adivivaram, Visakhapatnam District, bearing Door
NO 18-37//3 under Assessment No.20110910022 and Door No.18-37/2 and Assessment No
20110910021 respectively, as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law violative of Art 14, 21 and 300-A of
the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to pass orders regularising
their occupation and pass......"
WP No.21398 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, for the following relief:
"....to issue any Writ order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
Respondents in not regularising the petitioners occupation of the land to an extent 2500 sq meters in S
No 275 of Adivivaram, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal, arbitrary bad in law violative of Art 14, 21 and
300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent......"
2. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same,
they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this
Common Order.
3. Since the facts in both the writ petitions are similar and identical,
therefore WP No.24625 of 2012 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein
hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.
4. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are having an extent of
200 sq.yds., each in Sy No.275 of Adivivaram, Visakhapatnam District. As per
municipal records they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said
lands. The Government pursuant to the judgment of this Hon'ble Court,
issued G.O.Ms.No.578 Revenue (Endowments-IV), dated 19-8-2000
prescribing guidelines and the amounts that are to be collected for
regularization and issuance of no objection certificate by the 2nd Respondent.
Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Respondents with an application
on 30-5-2012 to regularize occupation of their land owned and possessed by
them, who in-turn refused to receive applications, despite clear directions of
the Government in G.O.Ms.No.578, dated19-8-2000. Though the application
of the petitioners has been received by the 2nd respondent, he did not pass
any orders nor is allowing the petitioners to make any constructions, though
the land owned by them a patta land. The petitioners submitted plan for
proposed construction of the building on the said land and basing on the
approved plan, the petitioners constructed the building and they are regularly
paying the municipal tax. It is further stated that the officers of the 2nd
Respondent visited the subject land several times and found that it is a patta
land, but not issuing NO OBJECTION certificate for the purpose of making
permanent construction. On the other hand, the officials of the 2nd
Respondent are coming regularly and threatening the petitioners that they will
be dispossessed from their land and they will not accept their application.
Hence, questioning the action of the respondents, the present writ petition has
been filed.
5. This Court vide order dated 16.07.2012 in WP No.21398 of 2012,
while issuing Notice before admission, has granted interim order that "status
quo shall be maintained by both the parties, until further orders".
6. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent in WP
No.21398 of 2012. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter
alia, contended that, the respondent Devasthanam is maintaining a land
protection wing headed by Assistant Executive Officer to protect the
Devasthanam lands situated in 5 villages namely 1) Adivivaram, 2) Vepagunta
3) Venkatapuram 4) Purushothapuram and 5) Cheemalapalli including the
lands covered by S.No.275 of Adivivaram(v). The land protection wing is
empowered for prevention of further encroachments and constructions of the
individuals in the lands belonging to Simhachalam Devasthanam. Further it is
stated that with regard to interim order in W.P.M.P.No.8012/2009 in
W.P.No.6132/2009, the Devasthanam has filed its vacate petition in that case
and it is pending for adjudication and the said case is not relevant to the facts
of this case. It is further stated that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble
Court was pleased to consider the similar claim of the occupant in
W.A.No.536/ 2010 filed against the order in W.P.No.22/2010 and held that in
the absence of valid application made before the cut of date i.e., 30-04-2004,
the petitioners cannot maintain writ petition seeking regularization under
G.O.Ms.No.578 and only course left open is the process and that the
provisions of Endowments Act and cannot seek any relief under the said G.O.,
vide order dated 07-09-2010. The present case also squarely covered by the
said Judgment. Further, in view of the large scale encroachments that are
made by unscrupulous elements in the lands belonging to the respondent
Devasthanam, appropriate proceedings have been initiated by the respondent
in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.4416/09 and the Honorable
High Court granted an order directing the respondents Commissioner,
G.V.M.C. and Vice Chairman, VUDA, Visakhapatnam not to grant any
construction permissions, accord approvals for the layouts and individual
houses, laying roads and drains etc. in the lands belonging to Simhachalam
Devasthanam situated in villages namely 1) Adivivaram 2) Vepagutna 3)
Purushothapuram 4) Venkatapuram and 5) Chemmalapalli covered under
ryothwari pattas granted by the concerned M.R.Os to the subject Temple.
Moreover, the entire area in Sy.No.275 belong to this respondent Temple and
as such the petitioners are not entitled to seek any relief with regard to the
said lands. It is relevant to submit that both the Government and the VUDA
earmarked entire subject area in S.No.275 of Adavivaram Village as GREEN
BELT in both the draft and Master plan of VUDA. Thus no developmental
activities can be carried on by anybody in S.No.275 of Adivivaram. The
Devasthanam has filed a W.P.No.3184 of 2009 on the file of the High Court
against the Commissioner, G.V.M.C., Visakhapatnam and Vice-Chairman,
VUDA, Visakhapatnam and got interim direction on 19.2.2009 in
W.P.M.P.No.4133 of 2009 in W.P.No.3184 of 2009 against the Respondents
not to entertain or grant any building permission either for residential or
commercial purpose to any person in the land in any part of Sy.No.275 of
Adivivaram, China Gadili Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. It is further
stated that the petition as framed is not maintainable under Law. Further the
petitioners have no enforceable right for issuing a writ of mandamus as prayed
for.
7. Heard Smt. A.V.S. Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments
appearing for the respondents.
8. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating
the contents made in the petition, request this Court to issue a direction to
the respondents for regularizing the petitioners occupation and pass
appropriate orders.
9. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader has
also while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits
that, on the basis of G.O.MS.No.406, Revenue (Endts.IV) Department,
dated 20.06.2000, declaring that the entire hill of Ac 5279.57 cts. Situated
at Adivivram (v) should belong to Devasthanam notwithstanding anything
contained in the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Visakhapatnam (R) in the subject matter of Inam proceedings. On the
basis of the said G.O., this High Court, as per order, dated 28.9.2000
allowed the compromise petition in WP No.32800 of 1997 filed by both the
Departments of Revenue and Devastham. So the order of this Hon'ble
High Court has become final. Therefore, Sri VLN Swamy Devasthanam is
the absolute owner of the land Ac 5279.57 cts., covered by Sy No.275 of
Advivaram (v). Hence, the petitioners have no right to question the action
of the 2ndrespondent Devasthanam in any way particularly the actions in
the process of protecting the land from encroachments.
10. Perused the material on record.
11. It is contention of the petitioners that they are in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the subject land by raising a house by paying
Panchayat Tax and now Municipal Tax and as per the Municipal records
they have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. It is
also the contention of the petitioners that the Government pursuant to the
orders of this Court, have issued G.O.Ms.No.578 Revenue (Endowments-
IV) dated 19.8.2000 prescribing guidelines and the amounts that are to be
collected for regularization and issuance of No Objection certificate by the
2nd respondent.
12. But, whereas, it is the contention of the respondents that the
above said G.O. is only intended for regularization of encroachments in
Devasthanam lands for a specific period ended by 30.4.2004. Thereafter,
the said G.O was superseded by issue of another G.O.Ms.No.253
Revenue (Endts-IV) Department, dated 3.3.2005 by constituting a
Committee of 4 numbers of MLAs of Visakhapatnam district and 4 numbers
of officials and the said Committee was directed to expedite the long
pending issues relating to regularization of the encroachment/occupation of
lands of Sri VLN Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam in the interest of the
institution and advise the Commissioner, Endowments Department, for
settlement under Section 89 of A.P. Endowments Act 30/87 within a period
of 3 months from the date of the constitution.
13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on
hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is inclined
to dispose of the writ petitions while declaring the action of the 2nd
respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
residential land of the petitioners in S.Nos.275 and 275/P of Adivivaram,
Visakhapatnam District, as illegal and arbitrary.
14. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. The 2nd
respondent is directed not to interfere with the petitioner's subject land. If
at all, there are any disputes with regard to subject land, the 2nd
respondent authority shall follow due process of law by duly issuing a
notice to the petitioners, as contemplated under law. Till then, the
respondent authorities are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from
the subject land.
15. There shall be no order as to costs.
16. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand
closed.
_________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : -09-2024
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITON Nos.24625 and 21398 of 2012
Date :20.09.2024
Gvl
