Disposed

V Suresh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Aug 2019WP(PIL)/89/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public Interest Litigation regarding government land dispute where 10th respondent alleged fraudulent mutation. Petitioners prayed for writ of mandamus quashing action against respondents and directing officials to take action. Court directed concerned authorities to dispose of pending representations if any before petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Direction to authorities concerned to deal with any pending representations made by the petitioners.

V Suresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶3

WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.89 of 2019

¶4

ORDER: {Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice C. Praveen Kumar}

¶5

The present writ petition came to be filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation seeking the following relief:

¶6

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioners herein pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (i) declaring the action of the respondents-authorities in not taking any action against respondents 10 to 12 for their fraudulent, forgery and malafide action in mutation and creating false documents over the “SUBJECT PROPERTY” i.e., Government land to an extent of Ac.9.84 cents in Sy.No.200/2 and an extent of Ac.3.31 cents in Sy. No. 200/6 totalling an extent of Ac.13.15 cents situated in Tada Kanigiri Village Revenue Accounts, Tada Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, as if it is a private land, as arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice; (ii) declaring the action of official respondents more particularly respondents Nos.3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 in failing to initiate effective and statutory measures to protect the Government “SUBJECT PROPERTY” from the hands of land encroachers, as illegal and arbitrary; and consequently directing the official respondents to initiate effective steps in accordance with Statutory Provisions of Act 9 of 1977 etc; (iii) declaring the action of the official respondents in allowing encroachment of Government land by respondents 10 to 12 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice; and (iv) to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶7

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners; learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, and perused the material available on record.

¶8

It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the land admeasuring Ac.9.84 cents in Sy.No.200/2 and an extent of Ac.3.31 cents in Sy.No.200/6 totalling to an extent of

¶9

¶10

HACJ & MSM,J W.P.(PIL) No.89/2019

¶11

Ac.13.15 cents situated in Tada Kanigiri village, Tada Mandal, was described as “GAYALU” (Government Poramboku Land) in the revenue records. According to the petitioners, the said land is noncultivable Government land abutting the Eco-Sensitive Zone of Pulicat Lake and Bird Sanctuary. It is stated that the 10^th respondent, who is well aware that the subject property is a Government land, with the active support of some of the officials hatched up a plan to knock away the potential Government land in an illegal manner and accordingly, introduced a new story stating that he purchased the subject property vide registered sale deed Doc.No.1728 of 1978 registered at Sub Registrar office, Sullurpeta, SPSR Nellore District. It is stated that there was no such document registered with the 9^th respondent as per the information furnished by the 9^th respondent under RTI Act vide proceedings dated 1.10.2018. It is stated that the 10^th respondent created revenue records in respect of the property in question as a private property, and by virtue of the fabricated and forged revenue records, the 10^th respondent sold a portion of the subject property i.e., an extent of Ac.4.04 cents out of Ac.9.84 cents to 11^th respondent-K.J. Suwresh, Managing Director of M/s. Lakshmi Bhoomi Developers & Promoters Private Limited. Further, the 10^th respondent executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the said K.J. Suwresh for the remaining extent of Ac.5.66 cents. It is stated that the 11^th respondent in order to create further evidence on 15.12.2018 executed a simple mortgage deed vide Doc.No.4086/2018 and the 10^th respondent executed deed of simple mortgage vide Doc.No.4085/2018, dated 17.12.2018 in favour of the 12^th respondent relating to the subject property. It is stated that the

¶12

¶13

HACJ & MSM,J W.P.(PIL) No.89/2019

¶14

above circumstances coupled with the document proof clearly reveals modus-operandi of unofficial respondents. It is stated that though the petitioners made series of representations to the respondent-authorities, no action has been taken so far. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶15

The 6^th respondent filed a counter-affidavit disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Paragraph No.3 of the counter-affidavit reads as follows:

¶16

An extent of Ac.26.15 cents in Sy.No.200 of Tada Kandriga Village is originally classified as Gayalu as per the fair adangal of the village. Later, an extent of Ac.9.84 cents in Sy.No.200/2 was granted in favour of Eswaravaka Venugopal Reddy under Political sufferer quota as verified in the register maintained by District Collectorate, in 1959 vide D.Dis.No.43685/58 dated 9.12.1959. After demise of the pattadar, his son Eswaravaka Prabhakar Reddy sold an extent of Ac.4.92 cents and his wife Smt. Rajeswaramma sold an extent of Ac.4.92 cents, in total Ac.9.84 cents to M/s Andhra Giant Machine Tools Private Limited, vide registered document Nos.1728/79, dated 7.12.1979 and 1729/79 dated 7.12.1979 respectively. The District Munsif Court, Sullurpet executed a deed No.773/1984 in favour of one Y. Narasimhulu, as Doraswami, defendant in O.S.No.85/1979 dated 10.8.1981 and an appellant in appeal suit No.14/1981 dated 4.3.1983, did not register the deed in favour of Narasimhulu for an extent of Ac.8.25 in Sy.No.200-4 and 200-6. The said Narasimhulu transferred the subject land to Y.N. Chandravathi vide registered document No.838/1986, dated 15.9.1986. The said Chandravathi transferred

¶17

¶18

HACJ & MSM,J W.P.(PIL) No.89/2019

¶19

an extent of Ac.3.31 cents in Sy.No.200/6 through registered documents No.773/84, dated 20.10.1984 in favour of M/s Andhra Giant Machine Tools Private Limited, Madras. During the year 1992, the Andhra Giant Machine Tools Private Limited changed its name as Dodla Enterprises Private Limited vide register of company Lr.No:250/8032/DEL (PS21)/92, dated 15.10.1992. Till then, the land is under its possession since 1979. Pattadar pass Book and Title deeds were also issued in favour of Dodla Sesha Reddy, Managing Director, Dodla Enterprises Private Limited vide book No.J434826 vide Khata No.365 dated 26.5.2007. It is stated that Dodla Sesha Reddy, Managing Director, Dodla Enterprises private Limited, Tada Kandriga village applied for land conversion from agricultural land to Non-agricultural purpose duly remitting an amount of Rs.29,58,750/- vide challan No.8294 dated 7.1.2016 towards conversion fees. The competent authority i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Naidupet converted the land under A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-agricultural Purpose) Act, 2006 vide D.dis.No.B4/37/2017, dated 4.2.2017. It is a fact that the subject land was granted under political sufferer quota and the portion of the land got through registered sale deed executed by the District Munsif Court, Sullurpet, and after that from Y.N. Chandravathi. Therefore, the 6^th respondent entered the name of the 10^th respondent in village records. At the time of granting patta, the subject land area was not included in Pulicat Bird Sanctuary as an Eco Sensitize Zone. The area was included in Pulicat Bird sanctuary vide gazette No.22 Ministry of environment and Forests Notification, New Delhi dated 3.1.2014. The 10^th respondent purchased an extent of Ac.13.15 cents in Sy.No.200/2

¶20

¶21

HACJ & MSM,J W.P.(PIL) No.89/2019

¶22

& 200/6 of Tada Kandriga village through registered documents and applied for conversion from Agricultural to non-agricultural purposes under A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for NonAgricultural Purpose) Act, 2006, duly remitting conversion fees of Rs.29.58.750/- vide challan No.8294 dated 7.11.2016. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Naidupet, accorded permission vide D.Dis.B4/37/2017, dated 4.2.2017. The 10^th respondent has acquired the land through registered documents and his name was entered in revenue records as a pattadar. Further, the petitioner stated that he had obtained the information from the 9^th respondent i.e., Sub-Registrar, Sullurpet under RTI Act, 2005 on 1.10.2018 that the Document concerned i.e., Doc.No.1728 of 1978 was not registered in their office and was a fabricated document. But, the petitioner erroneously applied for the copy of Doc.No.1728 of 1978 under RTI Act, instead of Doc.No.1728/1979, which was the actual registered Document for the said land. Hence, the contents raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are baseless and are far away from truth. It is pleaded that the 6^th respondent strictly acted in accordance with law and therefore, no relief can be granted in this writ petition.

¶23

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the representation made before the authorities concerned may be directed to be dealt with at the earliest.

¶24

Having regard to the above, we feel that it would be just and proper to direct the authorities concerned to deal with the representation, if any made by the petitioners and if any pending.

¶25

¶26

HACJ & MSM,J W.P.(PIL) No.89/2019

¶27

Accordingly, the authorities concerned, to whom the representation is said to have been made, are directed to deal with the representation, if any made by the petitioners and if any pending. The petitioners are also at liberty to send a copy of the representation so made afresh to the authorities concerned.

¶28

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶29

____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ACJ

¶30

_________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

¶31

Dated: 1.08.2019 Nn

¶32

¶33

HACJ & MSM,J W.P.(PIL) No.89/2019

¶34

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND

¶35

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶36

WRIT PETITION (pil) No.89 of 2019

¶37

(Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice C. Praveen Kumar}

¶38

1.8.2019

¶39

V Suresh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Suresh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

People Unnity for Civil Liberties and Human Rights Vs the State of Ap

C. Ramanna, Vs M. Somasekhar

Somurouthu Satyanarayana Vs The Govt Of A.P Rep By Its Secretary

Ap State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs Sri Rajyalakshmi Raw and Boiled Rice Mill

Raptad Rahul Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mudunuri Savithri Vs The Asst. Commissioner (Endowments)