Dismissed

Bandaru Venugopal Rao v. Alluri Anasuya

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Aug 2019WA/168/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Common Judgment disposing two Writ Appeals challenging orders confirming land title mutations and initiating criminal prosecution. The Court dismissed the appeals, holding it inappropriate to raise the plea of denied natural justice regarding report supply for the first time, and upheld the initiation of prosecution for forgery.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeals were dismissed; no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Bandaru Venugopal Rao Vs Alluri Anasuya — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶4

W.A. Nos.869 of 2018 and 168 of 2019

¶5

COMMON JUDGMENT : ( Per Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

¶6

Since both these writ appeals are filed against the common order dated 16.4.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.10357 and 9149 of 2017, they are heard together and being disposed of by way of this common judgment.

¶7

The subject matter in the writ petitions relates to lands in R.S.No.660/2 admeasuring Ac.1.94 cents; R.S.No.653/1 admeasuring Ac.2.20 cents; R.S.No.661 admeasuring Ac.2.20 cents; R.S.No.661 admeasuring Ac.2.20 cents; R.S.No.660/1 admeasuring Ac.0.64 cents; R.S.No.661 admeasuring Ac.0.78 cents; R.S.No.653/1 admeasuring Ac.0.78 cents at Kalla Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. The issue arises under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. W.P.No.9149 of 2017 came to be filed by one, Alluri Anasuya questioning the inaction of the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar in implementing the order dated 29.12.2009 of Sub-Collector, Narsapur, as confirmed by the Joint Collector vide order dated 3.12.2016, as illegal and amounts to refusing to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on the 4^th respondentTahsildar under the Act. W.P.No.10357 of 2017 came to be filed by one, Bandaru Venugopala Rao and others seeking issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for records up to the order dated 3.12.2016 in case No.19602 of 2016 (D8) dated 8.1.2017 from the Office of the Joint Collector, Eluru and quash the same as illegal. After considering the matters at length, the learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P. No.10357 of 2017. However, insofar as W.P.No.9149 of 2017, the learned Single Judge, while confirming the orders of the revisional and

¶8

¶9

appellate authority, directed the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar to restore status quo ante in 1-B register in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.9149 of 2017 and consequently ordered issuance of title deeds to her within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. The order of the learned Single Judge also confirms the findings recorded by the SubCollector as well as Joint Collector for initiation of prosecution against Bandaru Venugopala Rao and accordingly directed Tahsildar, Kalla Mandal, to initiate criminal action for submitting fabricated D-Form pattas. Assailing the same, the present writ appeals came to be filed.

¶10

The main ground urged by Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, is that the reports of the Tahsildar dated 29-11-2008 and 20.3.2009 were not supplied to the appellants and without supplying the same, the authorities passed the orders, which is contrary to principles of natural justice.

¶11

The main plank of argument is that the entire proceedings took place without furnishing copies of the reports dated 29.11.2008 and 20.3.2009 and hence pleads that the order under challenge requires to be set aside on that score alone. However, as an alternative, he would submit that at least initiation of criminal prosecution may be set aside.

¶12

A counter came to be filed by the 4^th respondent in the Writ Petition i.e., Tahsildar, denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. The entire contents of the affidavit relates to the merits of the matter, the entries made and manner in which the forged documents came to be used as genuine. His counter shows that on 21.7.2018, the application of Alluri Anasuya was approved and her name was mutated in the revenue records to an extent of Ac.10.56 cents in Sy.Nos.660/1, 660/2, 661, 653/1 situated at Kalla Revenue Village and Mandal, West Godavari District and e-pattadar

¶13

¶14

passbook-cum-title deed was issued to her on 21.7.2018. Though the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the report, which made the basis, was not furnished to him, the said fact is seriously disputed by the counsel appearing for the respondents. Strangely such an argument never raised in any of the proceedings. Neither any such ground was raised before the Sub-Collector, the JointCollector and also before the learned Single Judge. Even in the grounds of appeal filed along with the present writ appeals, such a plea was not taken. There was never an opportunity for the respondents to address the same in their counters. This fact is fairly admitted by Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

¶15

But, the appellants have relied on the judgments of this Court in Vutukuru Subba Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by its Revenue Secretary & Others¹ and Sannepalli Nageswar Rao v. District Collector, Khammam² and the judgment of the Apex Court in Brajlal Manilal and Co. v. Union of India and another³ in support of their plea. But, as observed by us earlier, the appellants never raised that disputed plea, which is also based on record, as to non-supply of reports. Had that plea was raised at the earliest point of time or at least before the Joint Collector, definitely, he would have answered the same. Further, a reading of the orders impugned does not indicate that the findings arrived at are based on that reports.

¶16

In fact, the orders of the Sub-Collector as well as the Joint Collector nowhere indicate independent reference to the reports of the Tahsildar. Apart from that the counsel relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court questioning the very filing of the revision under Section 9 of the Act. But, as seen from the record, the said revision

¶17

1 2014 4 ALD 205

¶18

2 2002 4 ALD 497

¶19

3 AIR 1964 SC 1643

¶20

¶21

came to be filed pursuant to an order passed by this court on 11.9.2014 in W.P. No.4040 of 2016, where the act of canceling the pattadar passbooks came to be questioned. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing the writ petitioners to file revision under Section 9 of the Act within four weeks. Pursuant thereto, a revision came to be filed by the appellants herein. Therefore, the appellants cannot now agitate that the authorities could not have entertained the revision.

¶22

That being so, we feel that at this stage it will not be proper to allow the appellants to raise a disputed point, for the first time before this court that too after so many years. We feel that having regard to the entries made in favour of Alluri Anasuya and having regard to the fact that e-pattadar passbook and title deeds were already issued in favour of her and factual findings arrived at, it would be appropriate to confirm the findings arrived at by all the three authorities, as no dispute is raised on the findings arrived at, except the point urged and referred by us as above i.e., non-furnishing of reports.

¶23

Coming to the plea which has been vehemently urged, that at least prosecution against one of the writ petitioner may be set aside, we feel that in cases of this nature and more particularly where the Joint Collector, Sub-Collector and the learned Single Judge have found the act of forgery and using of forged documents as genuine, we feel that it is a fit case for initiation of the prosecution against Bandaru Venugopala Rao, more so when no case is made out for stalling up the prosecution.

¶24