Allowed

Kamatham Chinna Rami Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Nov 2022WP/13965/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a notice threatening cancellation of land pattas. The Court set aside the notice directed at the petitioners because the land was legally assigned to their grandfather in 1925 and they held continuous possession.

What did the court decide?

The notice dated 14.04.2015 issued by the Tahsildar cancelling the petitioners' pattas was set aside. Respondents were directed not to dispossess the petitioners.

Kamatham Chinna Rami Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA]^ (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

OS I

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 13965 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

1. Kamatham Chinna Rami Reddy, S/o. Late Kamatham Chinthalappa, Aged about 77 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o. Yanumalavaripalli Village, Mudigubba Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

¶9

2. Kamatham Somasehkar Reddy, S/o. Kamatham Chinna Rami Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ: VRO, Donnikota, Nallamada Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

¶10

3. Kamatham Rajashekar Reddy, S/o. Kamatham Chinna Rami Reddy, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Community Surveyor, DRDA, N.P. Kunta, N,P; Kunta Mandal, Anantapuramu District..

¶11

...PETITIDNER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

staSta te of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Secretary.

¶14

_jeThe District Collector, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu District

¶15

The Tahsildar, Mudigubba Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the notice of the 3rd respondent issued in RC.No.A/2010/2015, dt. 14.4.2015 as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction.

¶18

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 18285 OF 2015)

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the notice of the 3rd respondent issued in RC.No.A/2010/2015, dt.14.4.2015, pending disposal of the WP.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶21

Between:

¶22

State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Secretary.

¶23

The District Collector, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu District

¶24

The Tahsildar, Mudigubba Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

¶25

AND

¶26

...Petitioners/Respondents No.1 to 3

¶27

Rami Reddy, S/o. Late Kamatham Chinthalappa, Aged

¶28

MuriiJiiihhflltJfnd 1^®®' ^'^Pjoy®®- R/o- Yanumalavaripalli Village, Mudigubba Mandal, Anantapuramu District. Somasehkar Reddy, S/o. Kamatham Chinna Rami Reddy, Aged

¶29

nkStw"*® ‘^o'^n'kota, Nallamada Mandal, Anantapuramu uisinci.

¶30

1. Reddy, S/o. Kamatham Chinna Rami Reddy, Aged

¶31

Mond Community Surveyor, DRDA, N.P. Kunta, N.P Kunta Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

¶32

... Respondents ! Petitioners

¶33

• th u 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order granted on 02.06.2015 in WP No. 13965 of 2015

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. O MANOHER REDDY

¶35

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶36

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶37

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶38

Writ Petition No. 13965 of 2015

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶41

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶42

“to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus ' declaring the notice of the 3'^ respondent issued in RC.No.A/2010/2015, dated 14.04.2015 as illegal, arbitrary and withoutjurisdiction and contrary to principles of natural justice. ” ! The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that land admeasuring Ac.6.25 cents in Survey No.354-1, Malakavemula Revenue village, Mudigubba Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, was assigned in favour of the father of the l«t petitioner in DAR Dis.72/1335, dated 12.09.1925 by the then Tahsildar, Kadiri. His father was in possession and enjoyment of the properly during his life time and his name was also entered in the revenue records and in the register of holdings. He died in the year 1940 leaving behind the petitioners and the petitioners are in continuous possession of the property. In the oral partition, the petitioners 2 and 3, who are children of the l»t petitioner, have got Ac.2.08 cents each. Thereafter, they

¶43

¶44

VS, J

¶45

W.P.No. 13965 of 2015

¶46

made an application to the Tahsildar for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds and after conducting enquiry under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued. On a representation made by the residents of the village stating that the petitioners are taking steps to alienate the land, a notice dated 14.04.2015 was issued to the petitioners as to why their pattas are cancelled. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶47

• The respondent filed counter, inter alia. contending that the lands in question was sub-divided into seven parts and the said land was assigned in favour of the father of the pt petitioner and the classification of the land have not been reflected in any village account like 10/1 adangal and Resettlement register. Subsequent to the filing of writ petition, the petitioners have partitioned the lands in question for which they obtained pattadar pass books by the revenue authorities. The lands in question are not under cultivation for the last so many years and kept

VS, J

W.P.No.13965 of 2015

vacant without cultivation. The said land in question was classified as vagu as per Diglot (Resettlement Register). The lands in question is required for issuance of house site pattas to the weaker sections since many applications are received from the landless poor persons.

¶53

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶54

Having gone, through the material on record, it is the contention of the petitioners that assignment to the father of the petitioners was made as early as on 12.09.1925 and for the last more than ninety years, the petitioners are enjoying the lands. At this stage, initiation of proceedings for cancellation of pattadar passbooks on the ground that assigned land was kunta poramboke land under the impugned notice appears to be highly illegal, arbitrary and : improbable. As seen from the impugned notice, it appears that on verification of village accounts, the land in Survey No.354 was recorded as vanka poramboke and the petitioners have made layouts for house plots for selling the same.

VS, J

W.P.No.13965 of 2015

In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the High Court of Telangana passed in similar circumstances in W.P.No.20972 of 2015 wherein, a learned single Judge held as follows:

¶59

"the subject lands are assigned prior to 1954 and the transactions through registered sale deeds took place prior to 1954. The Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 16.11.2018 for deletion of lands from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and a circular dated 29.11.2018 to that effect was also issued wherein certain guidelines were issued to the District Collectors for deletion of such lands from the list of prohibited properties. When the Government has took note of the same and issued G.O and circular referred to above, the ■ inclusion of subject land in the list of prohibited properties appears to be illegal. While considering the similar issue, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 13.02.2013 in H6A No.l87 of 2013 held that there was no clause prohibiting alienation of assigned lands prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.ll42, dated 18.06.1954. In view of above facts and circumstances and the documents relied on by the learned ' counsel for the petitioner, the 6th respondent cannot keep the documents pending for registration from the year 2015 onwards. ’

¶60

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this court is of the view that

¶61

¶62

vs, J

¶63

W.P.No. 13965 012015

¶64

since the land was assigned as way back as in the year 1925 vide DAR Dis.72/1335, dated 12.09.1925 in favour of the father of the 1st petitioner and thereafter, the petitioners are in continuous, possession of the same by pa3nng cist, now the question of cancellation of pattas through the impugned notice does not arise, and hence, the imputed notice is liable to be set aside.

¶65

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the notice in Rco.>No.A/210/2015, dated 14.04.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Mudigubba Mandal, is hereby set aside. However, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners in the land in question. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶66

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any. opehding shall stand closed.

¶67

Sd/- K.TATA RAO DEPUTY Rr ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// secti6t ipFICER To, 1. , Secretariat, 3 ThS TaSi Anantapuramu. Anantapuramu District 6. Two CDVoptes revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] MSR gl

¶68

¶69

HIGH COURT

¶70

DATED: 15/11/2022

¶71

ORDER

¶72

WP.No.13965 of 2015

¶73

X 0 5 SEP 2023 ml
Current Section

¶74

DISPOSING OF WP WITHOUT COSTS

Kamatham Chinna Rami Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamatham Chinna Rami Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Korsa Laxmi Vs The State of of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Goddu Sitamahalakshmi, Vs The Tahsildar

Ghanta Venkata Naga Malleswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vathaluru Venkata Ramana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary

B. Ramalingadu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kaku Srinivasulu Reddy Vs The State of Ap.