Dismissed

Yelisetti Lakshmi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Aug 2021WP/11427/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging dispossession by revenue officials. The Court held that disputed questions of title and extent of land ownership must be adjudicated by civil courts, not exercised in a writ petition, though a direction was issued for the respondent not to interfere with the established possession.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 4 not to interfere with petitioner's possession of 4-49 cents in S.No.197.

Yelisetti Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.11427 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:-

¶4

“ to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 4 and 5 and their staff in initiating steps to dispossess the petitioner from her land in an extent of Ac.5-90 cents in S.No.197 of Tadepalligudem Town & Mandal, West Godavari District purportedly for allotment of house sites under Government scheme, without following due process of law, as illegal and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 4 and 5 to drop the proposal and desist from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over her land in an extent of Ac.5-90 cents in S.No.197, Tadepalligudem Town & Mandal, West Godavari District”.

¶5

The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that petitioner is a senior citizen and resident of Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District for the past 70 years. She inherited the property through registered Will dated 19.09.1996 creating life interest and vested reminder in favour of her daughter in an extent of Ac.5-90 cents in S.No.197 of Tadepalligudem Village. Her husband died on 29.10.2001 and consequently she being a legatee under the Will succeeded the property. In view of life interest created in her favour, she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the property without interruption from anyone. Her name was also mutated in revenue records, Form 1B, pattadar passbook and title deed also issued in her favour and mutated her name in all

¶6

¶7

revenue records. The petitioner raised coconut trees in the land besides seasonal crops like sugarcane and other crops. Earlier, there were teak trees, but in the month of September, due to cyclone and heavy rains which uprooted teak trees. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application before the then 4^th respondent for permission to sell the teak trees as fell down due to rain. A survey was conducted by the then 4^th respondent and submitted a report that, she is the owner of land in an extent of Ac.5-90 cents in S.No.397 of Tadepaliguem village and consequently permission was accorded to her to sell the teak trees. Hence, it is clear from the material that she became the owner of land in an extent of Ac.5-90 cents in S.No.397 of Tadepaliguem village as legatee under the Will being life estate holder.

¶8

Due to Covid-19, the agricultural income is decreased drastically and when she wanted to apply for crop loan from the Nationalized bank, her son verified 1-B adangal online and shocked to know that the extent of land owned and possessed by her is reduced to Ac.4-49 cents from Ac.5-90 cents and she is unaware of the said change in the online revenue records because no notice was issued to her, she made a representation.

¶9

While so, on 06.07.2020 her son who was supervising the agricultural works, he noticed the visit of revenue officials to take measurements adjacent to the fencing of her land. When he enquired the officials, they in turn informed that they are making

¶10

¶11

disbursement of house site pattas under the scheme of

¶12

‘ Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki Illu ’ and in that process, they are

¶13

conducting survey.

¶14

While the matter stood thus, on 07.07.2020, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondents 2, 3 and 4 through her son and requested them to rectify the mistake on online records, but they refused to receive the representation and consequently she sent the representation through registered post to them on 08.07.2020. But, shockingly on the very same day i.e. on 08.07.2020, the respondents 4, 5 and their staff removed fencing of their land during afternoon and started levelling the land by using JCB. The petitioner’s son requested them not to trespass, but they did not heed the request of her son and trying to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law which is illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

As the report of Tahsildar is sufficient to establish that the petitioner became the owner of land in an extent of Ac.5-90 cents, taking advantage of mistake in the entries in the revenue records or rectification of mistakes, the respondents 2 to 4 and their men trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land. Again on 09.07.2020, the respondents 4 and 5 and their staff entered the land and demolished the fencing of land of the petitioner and trying to demolish the structure i.e., house meant for deity and tried to level the land with men and machinery. But her son

¶16

¶17

resisted the illegal acts with the help of neighbours and agricultural labourers. Consequently they left the land while threatening her son that they would come back to dispossess the petitioner from the land and the high-handed act of attempt to dispossess the petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac.1-51 cents is illegal and arbitrary and request to issue a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law.

¶18

The 4^th respondent filed counter along with vacate stay application in I.A.No.2 of 2020 while narrating the history of land in different survey numbers of Tadepalligudem. The case of the respondents in brief is that, on conducting survey of Tadepalligudem, Kadakatla, Kondruprolu and Kunchanapalli Villages, they found an extent of Ac.650-49 cents that is acquired by the then Collector, west Godavari, Eluru on 14.03.1944 under Rule 75-A1 of the Defence of India Rules on 25.05.1943. The area can be divided under different categories i.e. vacant land, land covered by quarry, ponds, cement Runway etc., as detailed below.

¶19

Sl.No.	Name of the Village	Extent (Ac.Cts)
1	Tadepalligudem	223-94
2	Kadakatla	180-91
3	Kondruprolu	226-79
4	Kunchanapalli	18-85
	Total	650-49

¶20

The Defence Department approached the Government of Andhra Pradesh to take possession of the Air Field lands. The

¶21

¶22

Government in Memo No.3012/B1/86-10 Rev.B., dated 13.07.1987, agreed to take over the Air field land on custodian responsibility subject to payment of market value to finalize later. The Government directed the Collector, West Godavari District to take possession of the Air field land and furnish regular proposals for fixing market value of the land. The Air field land measuring Ac.650-49 cents has been taken possession on 03.08.1987 from the Defence Estate Officer, Visakhapatnam by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tadepalligudem. Later, the Secretary to Government of India in letter No.10/41/RD/DE/SE/68/436/US/D(Air-III)/1999, dated 13.07.1999 informed about transfer of Air field land to the State Government on consideration of Rs.1.00 crore as against Rs. 4,03,69,091/-. Physical possession of the Air field land has already been handed over to the State Government of Andhra Pradesh on 03.08.1987 under the Authority of Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No.10(2)/1988-D(Air-II) Vol-II, dated 27.07.1987. Accordingly, the then Collector, West Godavari, Eluru has sent demand draft bearing No.013053, dated 08.03.2002 for Rs.1.00 crore drawn in favour of the Defence Estate Officer, Visakhapatnam towards value of Air field land. The demand draft was also sent to the Defence Estate Officer, Visakhapatnam vide Roc.No.E2/1705/2002, dated 13.03.2002 through a special messenger.

¶23

The Government of India vide Memo No.41131/ANS.VII/ 2005-2, dated 27.09.2005 informed the Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru not to consider any proposals for allotment of any

¶24

¶25

land out of the extent of Ac.650-49 cents consisting of four villages viz., Tadepalligudem, Kadakatla, Kondruprolu and Kunchanapalli in Tadepalligudem Mandal meant for Air field land as it would be difficult to acquire land at a later date, in case, the available land is reduced due to allotment in favour of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi etc.

¶26

The State in Memo No.6648/Assn.II(1) 2001, dated 28.4.2015 issued orders relaxing the ban orders on Air field land for an extent of Ac.348.74 cents to utilize the said land for public purpose only. Accordingly, the Air field land was allotted to various Government institutions.

¶27

After acquisition of land, the Government has exercised its right to utilize the land acquired for any other public purpose other than one stated in Section 6(3) declaration as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 1977 SC Page 448. In case the land is not required for which it was acquired for any reason, the land shall be utilized for any other public purpose as per Para-32 of BSO-90. Therefore, the respondents proposed to utilize the land to assign the land to landless poor under the scheme “ Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki Illu ” and identified an extent of Ac.76-02 cents of Air field land covered by Rs.Nos.108/1 and 137/2 including an extent of Ac.1-27 cents out of Ac.3-83 cents in R.S.No.137/2 of Tadepalligudem Town and Mandal and Ac.3-25 cents of Village site in Rs.No.15/2 of Darsiiparru Vilalge of Pentapadu Mandal as they are only available in Tadepalligudem Mandal, suitable for housing, thus they proposed

¶28

¶29

the said site for Housing to homeless poor under “ NavaratnaluPedalandariki Illu ” scheme. No claims and objections received at the time of conducting survey for allotment of proposed lands, but the respondents never proposed the petitioner’s land for house sites as contended and there will not be any problem for ingress and egress of the public in the village.

¶30

The petitioner is the owner of an extent of Ac.4-49 cents in S.No.397 and the total extent in S.No.197 of Tadepalligudem Village is only Ac.16-49 cents as per the revenue records, but the claim of this petitioner that the said survey number consists of Ac.17-45 and bequeathing the land under a Will dated 19.06.1999 is created one for the purpose of claiming right in Air field land in R.S.No.137/2 which is adjacent to the land of Northern site to S.No.197 and the details of owners and occupiers of land in S.No.197 of Tadepalligudem are given hereunder:

¶31

RS.No	Total extent	Name of the pattadar	Extent	Khata No.
197	Ac.16-49	Grandhi Durgamba	4-00	292
		Ch.Saila Kumari	4-00	314
		Ch.Venu Gopal	2-00	386
		Yelisetti Lakshmi	4-49	387
		Ch.Brahmani	2-00	683
Total	Ac.16-49		Ac.16-49

¶32

Thus, the petitioner is owner of an extent of Ac.4-49 cents only in S.No.197 and not for an extent of Ac.5-90 cents, but she is claiming the remaining land in the adjacent S.No.137/2 of Tadepalligudem Village, with malafide intention which is exclusively

¶33

¶34

belong to Air field land. Now it is the Government land after taking over the land. The respondents further contended that they never proposed the petitioner’s zeroythi land in R.S.No.197 for housing and never threatened son of the petitioner and never attempted to dispossess the petitioner from her land as contended. Hence, dismiss the writ petition.

¶35

During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri would contend that petitioner is the owner of Ac.5-90 cents in S.No.197 of Tadepalligudem and the same is substantiated by registered Will executed by her father who created life interest in the property, dated 19.09.1996. Apart from pattadar pass book issued in her favour in Katha No.397 after the death of her husband would clinchingly establish that she is the owner of an extent of Ac.5-90 cents in S.No.197 of Tadepalligudem Mandal. In addition to that, the proceedings issued by Tahsildar in RBC No.79/2006(2), dated 14.02.2006 coupled with the certificate issued by Tahsildar permitting the petitioner to sell the property i.e. teak trees in an extent of Ac.5-90 cents in S.No.197 substantially establish the right of the petitioner in Ac.5-90 cents but not limited her right to an extent of Ac.4-49 cents, based on these documents the petitioner contended that the revenue authorities by changing the entries in the revenue records wanted to grab the land of the petitioner and dispossessed her without following due process of law and thereby requested to declare their action as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with her possession except by due process of law.

¶36

¶37

Whereas, the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue vehemently contended that total land in S.No.197 is Ac.16-49 cents not Ac.17-45 cents and persons by name Grandhi Durgamba, Ch.Saila Kumari, Ch.Venu Gopal, Yelisetti Lakshmi (the petitioner) and Ch.Brahmani are in possession and enjoyment of different extents as shown in table in total extent of Ac.16-49 cents, thereby, the question of petitioner becoming owner of an extent of Ac.5-90 cents by virtue of a Will and in view of the proceedings issued by Tahsildar dated 14.02.2006 does not arise and that the proceedings would not create or confer any title or right over the property. As the petitioner only possessed Ac.4-49 cents in S.No.197, she is trying to grab Air field land in S.No.137/2 and 108/1 which is exclusively belonging to Revenue Department and claiming the land in S.No.137/2 which is adjacent to the land on the Northern side of S.No.197. Therefore, the petitioner is not the owner of the property and the respondents never made attempt to interfere with the land of the petitioner in an extent of Ac.4-49 cents in S.No.197 of Tadepalligudem and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶38

Considering rival contentions and on perusing the material available on record, the point need be answered by this Court is:

¶39

“whether the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.590 cents in S.No.197 of Tadepalligudem, if so, the attempt made by the respondents to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment in an extent of Ac.5-90 cents in S.No.197 be declared as illegal and arbitrary and consequently

¶40

¶41

direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere with the possession

¶42

and enjoyment of the property ”.

¶43

Point :

¶44

The basis for claim of this petitioner that she is the owner of the property is Will executed by her husband creating life interest and vested reminder to her son Venkata Rammohan and item No.2 of A-schedule in the Will is the subject property in an extent of Ac.590 cents in S.No.197 out of Ac.17-45 cents of Tadepalligudem Revenue Village. Schedule-B, item No.2 is corresponding to item No.2 of A-schedule husband of the petitioner created life interest to this petitioner i.e. to enjoy the property during her life time while conferring absolute interest in the property on his son Venkata Rammohan. The total extent is Ac.5-90 cents in A and B schedules in S.No.197 out of Ac.17-45 cents. The Will is only a document executed by her husband and such contents will not bind the respondents. However, a pattadar pass book was issued in favour of this petitioner with Khata No.387 and the land in her possession is mentioned in Page 3 of pattadar pass book and the total extent she owned and possessed is wet land of Ac.5-90 cents in S.No.197 and it was acquired under a Will executed by her husband. This pattadar pass book was issued in favour of the petitioner which is a prima facie document of title, in view of the presumption under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights and Pattadar Pass books Act, 1971.

¶45

¶46

Another document, the petitioner relied on is, the proceedings issued by Tahsildar in RBC No.79/2006, (2) dated 14.02.2006 along with annexed certificate to sell the teak plants fell down during cyclone. In the proceedings, the total extent is mentioned as ‘ Ac.5-90 cents in S.No.197 of Tadepalligudem ’ in the unnumbered second Paragraph. So also in un-numbered third Paragraph ‘ accorded permission to sell teak trees ’. In the certificate annexed to the proceedings also discloses the extent of land as Ac.5-90 cents in S.No.197 of Tadepalligudem which is a patta land, both in column Nos.2 and 7 of the certificate. These documents at best would establish that the permission was granted to her to remove the teak plants fell down during cyclone and sell those teak plants, but such proceedings would not create or confer any right, title to the property.

¶47

The documents referred by her are only registered Will and proceedings issued by Tahsildar. Those two documents will not create title or right over the property belonging to third party since those documents does not bind the third parties at best it bind interparties.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entries in the revenue records were changed, without notice to the petitioner limiting the extent of the petitioner to Ac.4-49 cents in S.No.197, more particularly in Form 1-B and pattadar adangal to dispossess from Ac.1-51 cents without following due process of law. A copy of 1B is placed on record both the petitioner and respondent. According

¶49

¶50

to Form 1-B copy taken from website on 09.07.2020, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1-49 cents and Ac.3-00 in S.No.197 of Tadepalligudem. Similarly, the pattadar adangal obtained by the petitioner on 09.07.2020 discloses that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property both as pattadar and legatee under the Will is Ac.1-49 cents and Ac.3-00, total Ac.4-49 cents. Besides the petitioner, several other persons namely Durgamba, Saila Kumari, Venugopal and Brahmani are also in possession of total extent i.e. Ac.4-00, Ac.2-00 and Ac.2-00 each. The documents like Form 1-B, pattadar adangal are not helpful for the petitioner to establish her right agricultural land in an extent of Ac.5-90 cents. However, if the petitioner produces the earlier Form 1- B and pattadar adangal obtained prior to the alleged change of entries in the revenue records, those documents may establish the illegal act of respondent No.4 regarding change of entries in the revenue records without notice to her. In the absence of earlier adangals to establish the extent recorded in her name is Ac.5-90 cents, it is difficult to believe that her name was mutated in the revenue records for an extent of Ac.5-90 cents in S.No.197 of Tadepalligudem.

¶51

The core contentions of the respondents 2 and 4 are that; 1) total land in S.No.197 is Ac.16-49 cents and the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.4-49 cents in S.No.197 of Tadepalligudem. But she is claiming land on the Northern side in S.No.197 which is part of S.No.137/2 in an extent of Ac.1-49 cents. To substantiate their contention, the respondents produced pattadar

¶52

¶53

adangal obtained on 31.10.2020 at 12.17 hours which discloses that the land in S.No.108/1 in an extent of Ac.0-69 cents belonging to the Government and pattadar adangal in column Nos.12 and 13 is recorded as Air field land. But in fact, the S.No.108/1 is unconcerned with the subject property. However, the pattadar adangal pertaining to S.No.197 is obtained on 31.10.2020 at 11.54 A.M., is also placed on record to show that the petitioner is in possession of Ac.1-49 cents and Ac.3-00 in S.No.197 with Katha No.397 being a pattadar and legatee under the Will and the same document discloses the land in possession of Durgamba, Saila Kumari, Venugopal, the petitioner herein and Brahmani. The other document produced before this Court is RSR extract of Tadepalligudem Village pertaining to the land in S.Nos.108/1, 137/2 and 197. Even according to the entries in RSR, the land in S.No.108/1 an extent of Ac.0-69 cents is classified as Air field land, similarly in S.No.137/2 an extent of Ac.10-00 is classified as Air field land, but the total land in S.No.197 is only Ac.16-49 cents and pattadars names are Durgamba, Saila Kumari, Yelisetti Lakshmi (the petitioner herein) and Brahamani. Therefore, the basic document to decide the extent of land under ownership, but here the total land in S.No.197 is Ac.16-49 cents, not Ac.17-90 cents as contended by the petitioner. On cumulative analysis of the documentary evidence available on record more particularly, RSR pertaining to S.No.197 prima facie establish that the total extent of land in S.No.197 is only 16-49 cents. But the petitioner is claiming that the total extent is Ac.17-90 cents which is prima facie false. Therefore, as a disputed

¶54

¶55

question cannot be decided by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶56

In any view of the matter, if the dispute is with regard to identity of the property on record, more particularly the alleged attempt to grab the land in S.No.137/2 which is adjacent land of the petitioner in S.No.197 on the Northern side, the petitioner to approach competent Civil Court and establish her right and title over the property in an extent of Ac.5-90 cents in S.No.197.

¶57

When the petitioner failed to establish her title, prima facie to the property based on the records and by producing previous adangals when she alleged that the respondent-authorities altered the entries without notice to her, this Court cannot decide such a disputed question of fact and the remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the authorities concerned to take the land measured with reference to FMB relating to Tadepalligudem Village pertaining to S.Nos.197 and 137/2 by making appropriate application through Mee-seva and if the total land in her possession is more than Ac.4-49 cents, she cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law. In view of the law declared by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs vs M. Varadappa Naidu (D) By Lrs. & Anr¹ , the Supreme Court held as follows:-

¶58

“…to forcibly dispossess citizens of their private property, without following the due process of law, would be to violate a human right, as also the

¶59

1 AIR 2004 SC 4609

¶60

¶61

constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution.”

¶62

So far as one of the allegations made by the petitioner is that the entries were altered without notice, but such alteration cannot be accepted because she did not produce any adangal or Form 1-B or RSR to establish that an extent of Ac.5-90 cents was recorded in S.No.197 in her name which is the primary document to decide her contention. So far the pattadar pass book is concerned, it is only a presumptive title over the property and on the basis of such presumptive title, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner has possessed an extent of Ac.5-90 cents in S.No.197. In those circumstances, this Court cannot decide such an issue and the petitioner may approach a competent authority and submit an appropriate application for rectification of the entries in the revenue records by making an appropriate application through Mee-seva in terms of G.O.Ms.No.209, dated 14.06.1994.

¶63

The respondents in their counter clearly made an assertion that the 4^th respondent never tried to interfere and never proposed the land of the petitioner in S.No.197 to allot the same to landless poor under the scheme “ Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu ”. This assertion in various Paragraphs more particularly, Paragraph Nos.3 and 4 is suffice to conclude that the alleged interference with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in an extent of Ac.4-49 cents in S.No.197 appears to be accepted and therefore, this Court need not declare the action of the respondents as illegal and it suffice to issue a direction to the 4^th respondent not to interfere with the

¶64

¶65

possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in an extent of Ac.4-49 cents in S.No.197. Leaving it open to the petitioner to redress her grievance either by making appropriate application as discussed in the earlier Paragraphs with the office of the 4^th respondent or by approaching competent Civil Court. Accordingly, the point is answered.

¶66

In view of my foregoing discussion, I find no grounds to issue Writ of Mandamus and consequently the writ petition is liable to be disposed of with a direction to the 4^th respondent and his staff not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in an extent of ac.4-49 cents in S.No.197 of Tadepalligudem Village. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶67

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶68

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶69

Date: -08-2021 KA

¶70

¶71

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶72

WRIT PETITION NO.11427 OF 2020

¶73