Dismissed

Prl Secy Revenue Dept, Hyd and 4 Others v. Chebolu Srinivas, Visakhapatnam and 11 Ot

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Sept 2021WA/309/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ appeal filed by the Government challenging a judgment that recognized the legal heirs of a political sufferer as owners of assigned government land. The Court held that an assignment order is substantive and the subsequent issuance of a patta is merely ministerial; failure to deliver the patta does not invalidate the vested right.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal was dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications were closed. No costs.

Prl Secy Revenue Dept, Hyd and 4 Others Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶3

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶5

WRIT APPEAL No.309 of 2013

¶6

(Through video conferencing)

¶7

Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, and others.

¶8

...Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Chebolu Srinivas, S/o Surya Prakash Rao, R/o Plot No.MIG-1-71, Sector 5, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam-17 and others.

¶11

…Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Ponnavolu Sudhakara Reddy, Additional Advocate General Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 11 : Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Senior Counsel for Mr. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri Counsel for respondent No.12 : Mr. P. Jagadish Chandra Prasad Standing Counsel.

¶13

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶14

Dt:03.09.2021

¶15

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

¶16

Heard Mr. Ponnavolu Sudhakara Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 11/writ petitioners.

¶17

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.NO.309 OF 2013

¶18

¶19

This writ appeal is presented against the judgment and order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the learned single Judge allowing W.P.No.27040 of 2007.

¶20

The prayer made in the writ petition reads as follows:

¶21

“…to issue a Writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners’ constitutional and fundamental rights by seeking to declare the petitioners’ property in admeasuring Ac.10.00 of Sy.No.347 situated at Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam District as Government land and thereby infringe petitioners rights even without following due procedure of law and without issuing any notice as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, in the breach of principles of natural justice and consequently, restrain the respondents from interfering with the petitioners’ rights in any manner whatsoever over the said property and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶22

The writ petition was filed by eleven petitioners, who claim to be the legal heirs of one late Chebolu Narayana Rao. Petitioner Nos.1, 9, 10 and 11 are the sons of late Surya Prakash Rao, who was the son of Chebolu Narayana Rao. Petitioner No.2 is the surviving son of late Chebolu Narayana Rao. Petitioner Nos.3 to 6 are the sons of late Babu Rao, who was another son of Chebolu Narayana Rao. Petitioner Nos.7 &

¶23

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.NO.309 OF 2013

¶24

¶25

8 are the sons of late Rama Rao, who was also a son of late Chebolu Narayana Rao.

¶26

It was stated in the writ petition that Chebolu Narayana Rao, who was working in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Narsapur Circle had resigned from service and joined in civil disobedience movement in support of the freedom struggle in the year 1930 and as a result, he was incarcerated for a period of four months in Girgam Jail, Bombay. After eight years, he was permitted to resume duty in the year 1938 and finally, he retired from service on medical grounds as SubInspector in Prohibition Department.

¶27

Consequent upon India attaining independence, late Chebolu Narayana Rao was recognised as a political sufferer/freedom fighter. In consonance with the existing policy of the Government to recognize the services of political sufferers, the Government of Andhra Pradesh (1^st appellant) had invited applications from various eligible political sufferers for assigning land upto an extent of Ac.10.00 each. Pursuant to the same, late Chebolu Narayana Rao had made an application on 25.07.1961 for allotment of land to an extent of Ac.10.00 cents of Madhurawada village.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioners that after an enquiry, the Revenue Inspector recommended the case of late Chebolu Narayana Rao for allotment of land in Sy.No.128/2(old) corresponding to new Sy.No.347 and consequent upon the said recommendations, orders were issued allotting an extent of Ac.10.00 cents of land in Sy.No.128/2 (old) corresponding to 347 (new) and allotment was made by issuance of a “D” Form patta No.801. It is the further case of the petitioners that late

¶29

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.NO.309 OF 2013

¶30

¶31

Chebolu Narayana Rao was put in possession of the land and he started cultivating the land till his demise in the year 1964.

¶32

After his demise, his successors-in-interest continued to be in possession of the land. In order to deprive the legal heirs of the said late Chebolu Narayana Rao, one Chirala Narayana Rao, had filed an application under the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 for issuance of a pattadar pass book and the same was granted. It was stated that he was in no way connected with late Chebolu Narayana Rao. Subsequently, on an enquiry conducted, in which the petitioners were not associated, a report was submitted, based on which pattadar pass book issued in favour of Chirala Narayana Rao was cancelled.

¶33

There were some press reports reporting that the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam was intending to transfer certain land in Madhurawada, claiming it to be Government land, in favour of Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority for the purpose of undertaking development works. Further, the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam issued proceedings dated 15.10.2007 directing handing over of various extents of property to the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority. In view of such developments, the petitioners had submitted an application on 27.11.2007 for issuance of pattadar pass book in their favour so that their land is not treated to be government land. While the application was pending, respondent Nos.5 and 6 visited their plot of land and they told the petitioners that respondent No.3 had asked them to take over possession and hand over the same to respondent No.6. It is in that circumstance, the writ petition came to be filed.

¶34

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.NO.309 OF 2013

¶35

¶36

Mr. P. Sudhakara Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, has made only one submission. By drawing our attention to paragraph 9 of the judgment under appeal, he contends that D-Form patta, which was prepared in the year 1970, was not signed by the Tahsildar and the same was not delivered to Chebolu Narayana Rao, as he had expired in the year 1964, and therefore, the petitioners being not assignees, did not have any vested right over the land in question.

¶37

Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 11/writ petitioners, submits that the aforesaid submission was advanced before the learned single Judge and the same was negatived after due consideration. Drawing the attention of the Court to page No.128 of writ appeal papers, under which information was supplied pursuant to the application made under Right to Information Act, 2005, it is contended by Mr. Rao that the name of ‘C. Narayana Rao’ was reflected at Sl.No.17 indicating that land was sanctioned in respect of land admeasuring Ac.10.00 cents in Sy.No.347 and therefore, it is too late in the day to contend that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was not assigned the land in question. He further contends that though in the counter-affidavit a ‘D-form’ was enclosed to contend that patta in favour of the predecessor-in-interest petitioners was not delivered, it is recited in the said patta that ‘the assignment shall be heritable but not alienable’, which is not a condition in respect of assignment made in favour of freedom fighters and therefore, plea taken is false on the face of it.

¶38

Drawing the attention of the Court to the Adangals and the account displaying the land-wise cultivation and ownership, Mr. Rao contends that

¶39

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.NO.309 OF 2013

¶40

¶41

those documents demonstrate the assignment of land in Sy.No.347 in favour of C. Narayana Rao as political sufferer, and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order under appeal and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

The learned single Judge on due consideration of the materials on record observed in the following manner:

¶43

In this context, in order to examine whether assignment has actually been granted, it is necessary to examine the order of the Special Tahsildar dated 14.10.1961. As stated above the Special Revenue Inspector submitted his report dated 27.09.1961. The village Karanam and Munsiff also enquired into the eligibility of the applicant and submitted a report dated 23.09.1961. Based on the said reports, Assignment Check Memo was prepared in file D.R.No.1289, which contains 10 columns, the relevant part of which is as follows :

¶44

“1 to 7 xxx xxx xxx

¶45

8 Recommendation. Ac.10-00 in S.No.128/2 of Madhuravada village may be Assigned as recommended by the VOs and Spl. R.I, subject to payment of SD fees of Rs.3/- and stone value Rs.5/-. Sd/ Head Clerk

¶46

(to be filled in by the Tahsildar) 9. Recommendation of the Sd/Tahsildar (If he is not the Signature of the assigning authority) Tahsildar. 10. Orders of the Assigning Assigned Authority. Sd/- Signature

¶47

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.NO.309 OF 2013

¶48

¶49

Special Tahsildar 14.10.1961.”

¶50

A perusal of Column 10 shows that order was passed duly signed by the Assigning Authority, the Special Tahsildar, granting assignment in favour of Chebolu Narayana Rao. Further, the Special Grade Deputy Collector, Steel Plant (Land Acquisition) Visakhapatnam conducted an enquiry into the episode of one Chirala Narayana Rao, who was trying to knock away the assigned land as an imposter of Chebolu Narayana Rao. In his enquiry report Rc.No.66/2007/RI, dated 26.06.2007 the said Special Grade Deputy Collector has adverted to the fact that Chebolu Narayana Rao was a political sufferer and that he had applied for assignment of Government land in Sy.No.128/2 of Madhurawada village for an extent of Ac.10.00 cents under D.R.No.1289 and as per the records maintained in the Collectorate and the M.R.O.’s office, the then Tahsildar (Assignments) had passed orders during 1961 for assignment. He also observed that the said Chirala Narayana Rao might have indulged in impersonation and created fake patta and manipulated to incorporate his name in the revenue records in the guise of Chebolu Narayana Rao, who was the original political sufferer and who was not actually given D-Form patta.

¶51

The aforesaid record clinchingly prove that the patta had in fact been granted to Chebolu Narayana Rao.”

¶52

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.NO.309 OF 2013

¶53

¶54

Appendix-V to Chapter I of Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders deals with ‘Form D’, indicating acceptance of application for grant of land in the case of Assignments to political sufferers. The said ‘Form D’ does not contain a stipulation to the effect that “land assigned shall be heritable but not alienable”. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the ‘Form D’ at Page 82 of the appeal papers on which reliance was placed by Mr.Reddy.

¶55

Perusal of the materials on record demonstrates that the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, who was a political sufferer, was incorporated in the documents referred to supra. The fact that pursuant to the order of the Tahsildar dated 14.10.1961, the assigning authority had accepted recommendation for assignment of land in favour of predecessor-in-interest of petitioners as he was recognized as political sufferer is not disputed by Mr.Reddy. His only contention is that as ‘D Form’ patta was not issued, assignee would have no vested right on the land. This aspect of the matter was considered by the learned Single Judge in the following manner:

¶56

However, despite the same, it is the contention of the respondents that D-Form patta prepared in the year 1970 and that it was not signed by the then Tahsildar and nor delivered to Chebolu Narayana Rao. Therefore, it is their contention that no right had accrued in favour of the assignee. In other words, the respondents would contend that unless a copy of the patta is actually served on the assignee, mere granting the same is not valid.

¶57

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.NO.309 OF 2013

¶58

¶59

The said contention does not deserve acceptance. As seen above, patta was granted on 14.10.1961. The land at that time was assessed in Sy.No.128/2. The said survey number was later carved into newly formed survey numbers in the year 1970 and the old Sy.No.128/2 was renumbered as Sy.No.347. It is not necessary nor is there any requirement under law that there should be a fresh grant whenever there is a change in survey numbers consequent upon resurvey and sub-division of the land. If there is any change in the survey number it is for the authorities to incorporate the same in the place of old survey number, but it does not invalidate the grant itself.

¶60

It is therefore abundantly clear that in the instant case, an order granting assignment is substantive order, where as issue of DForm patta is only ministerial. As noticed above, inaction in the issuance of patta does not invalidate the order granting assignment. Thus, there is no substance in the contention of the respondents that as a copy of the patta has not been delivered, the petitioners have not acquired any rights in pursuance of the assignment order. 25. A perusal of the concerned records shows that the respondents not only granted patta but also implemented the same recognizing the right of the assignee. Village Account No.10 is a settlement register of the village maintained under the Board Standing Orders. The said register contains particulars of those who are granted pattas and the extent of patta held by them. A perusal of the said

¶61

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.NO.309 OF 2013

¶62

¶63

register shows patta No.801 in respect of Sy.No.347 for an extent of Acs.10.00 of land in the name of C.Narayana Rao. The register is a crucial document, which clinchingly establish that the patta granted in favour of Chebolu Narayana Rao has been implemented and given effect to. That apart, the information furnished by the District Collector in his Proceedings M/Rc.No.31/2008/C6, dated 1803-2008 which was furnished to one S.Bhujanga Rao in pursuance of his application under the RTI Act also clinchingly show the name of Chebolu Narayana Rao at serial No.17 as an assignee of the subject land. The information was provided to the said applicant basing on the information collected from the office of the concerned Tahsildar. In the light of these documents, it is evident that the patta in favour of Chebolu Narayana Rao was given effect to and implemented. The death or otherwise of the assignee subsequent to the grant is of no consequence as an assignment of patta is indisputably heritable.”

¶64

We find no good ground to take a view different than the one taken by the learned single Judge.

¶65

In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the judgment under assailment does not call for any interference, and accordingly, finding no merit, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. All pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶66

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶67

Prl Secy Revenue Dept, Hyd and 4 Others v. Chebolu Srinivas, Visakhapatnam and 11 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prl Secy Revenue Dept, Hyd and 4 Others v. Chebolu Srinivas, Visakhapatnam and 11 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Sri Satyasai Degree College

Shaik Jilani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Potnuru Arun Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Matta Rakesh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

S Kumari Vs the Station House Officer

Smt. G. Shakila, Tiurpati Vs Registrar, Sri Padmavathi Mahila Visvavidyalayam, Chittor Dt