Disposed

Srimat Prativadi Bhayankaram Mantraratnam v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Dec 2022WP/37413/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the court directed the Assistant Settlement Officer to immediately conduct an enquiry regarding illegal occupations of inam and temple lands under the Andhra Pradesh Inams Act and pass orders within four weeks as directed in a previous order.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 3rd respondent to immediately conduct an enquiry into illegal occupations and pass orders, submit a report to the 2nd respondent within four weeks.

Srimat Prativadi Bhayankaram Mantraratnam Vs State… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.37413 of 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226

¶5

of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to initiate proceedings under the provisions of A.P.(AA) Inams (Abolition & Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 & Rules 1957 for determining the rights of the inamdar and the deity i.e. the 6^th respondent and consequently declare the action of the 5^th respondent in issuing Pattadhar Passbooks & Title deeds to the third parties / occupants as illegal, contrary and in violation of the provisions of the lnams Act and pass such other order or orders ….”.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that, originally Inam of more than 4000 acres was gifted by Sri Pusapati Vijaya Rama Gajapathi Raju, Maharaja of Vijayanagaram Kingdom to inamdars and the land in question was gifted to late Balaramcharyulu garu by the then King of Vijayanagaram Kingdom Sri Pusapati Vijaya Rama Gajapathi Raju in the year 1790. The title was passed from original Inamdar to several persons in parts and later they also devolved between the legal heirs. The original Inamdar Sri Balaramacharyulu left with 720 acres in TD.No.5081 and at present, the petitioner who is the

¶8

¶9

legal heir of Sri Balaramacharyulu is left with a share of 320 Acres of Inam land. It is pertinent to mention here that, Sri Srinivasacharyulu the eldest son of the original inamdar Sri Balaramacharyulu constructed a temple and has gifted 2/3^rd of his share in the inam land to the temple in the year 1862 and the same was registered in the year 1864 which is evident from the then Commissioner’s records. The remaining land of Sri Srinivasacharyulu has been inherited by the petitioner herein. Now, the temple has got land to an extent of 400 acres. The 6^th respondent in total has 400 acres of land gifted by the original inamdar and his family members and the deity is Sri Rajagopala Swamy varu in Kailasapatnam village in Kotavurutla Mandal. The landed properties are registered in Endowments records as well as Inam registers also. The inam lands forms the entire village known as Kailasapatnam and after the inam was granted, it is named as Kailasapatnam Agraharam. Therefore, the entire village is classified as “Inam Village” in the Inam registers. When survey was conducted by the Survey & Settlement Officer in the year 1959, the land found was to an extent of 4000 acres. Therefore, since it is seen that the entire village is covered as an Inam Village and an enquiry has to be conducted under the Inam Enquiries Act. The Inam Village, Kailasapatnam was published as Inam Village in the Visakhapatnam District Gazette 1959 and subsequently amended in the year 1962 and as such the name

¶10

¶11

was corrected from Kilasapuram to Kailasapatnam. In pursuant to the same, an application was made to the Assistant Settlement Officer but to the best known reasons no enquiry was conducted under Inams Act.

¶12

It is further case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner made a petition to the Tahsildar’s Office in the year 1997 claiming the properties. Again in the years 2001, 2007, 2012 & 2013 to various respondents including the District Collector. Pursuant to his continuous efforts, a District Gazette was published on 13.08.2014 publishing a list of prohibited lands under Section 22A (1) (a) of the Registration Act, intimating the Registrar not to register any of the lands of the Kailasapatnam inam village. But, there is no response from the respondents on his petition. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay in completion of enquiry under the Inams Act and thereby facilitating illegal occupation of the lands belonging to the inamdars, and more so, the temple lands. As per Section 3 of the Inams Act, “the Tahsildar may suo moto shall take action for completing the enquiry, to determine shares of the inamdars, the temple and the third parties in accordance with the provisions of the Inams Act”.

¶14

¶15

At the time of hearing, the Government Pleader for Revenue has produced written instructions of Tahsildar, Kotauratla, wherein it is stated as follows:

¶16

“Basing on the Settlement Fair Adangal of Kailasapatnam village, the Revenue activities like Jamabandhi etc., have been done for all these years. Nobody can deny the said Fair Adangal of the village. The Fair Adangal is the mother record of all the revenue records. After conducting survey and enquiries by the Settlement authorities, the Fair Adangal was prepared and settlement pattas were issued to the eligible ryoths during the year 1956. At this stage, the Tahsildar or any Revenue authorities cannot deny the said settlement pattas or has no power to the Revenue Authorities to interfere with the said settlement Pattadars or their possession. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner’s application cannot be considered as the petitioner has no right or whatsoever on the subject lands”.

¶17

On a perusal of the material papers filed by the petitioner, it appears that, basing upon the Mee-seva complaint, the District Collector/2^nd respondent in Roc NO.2888/2015/F3, dated 19.08.2015 has addressed a letter to the 3^rd respondent directing him to conduct an enquiry with regard to the Inam Settlement done in favour of Sri SPBM Suryanarayana Acharyulu situated in Sy.Nos.93/3 and 93/5 along with Venchepu Mandapam. But it appears that, so far, no such enquiry has been conducted in pursuance of the orders passed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶18

¶19

In view of the above, instead of going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent immediately to act upon the letter addressed by the 2^nd respondent dated 19.08.2015, for conducting an enquiry with regard to illegal occupations of the land belonging to the land of Inamdars and the temple land as per Section 3 of the Inams Act and pass appropriate orders as per the rules on the subject, if not, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and submit the same report to the respondent No.2 herein. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶21

_______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶22

Date :19.12.2022 KGR/SSN

¶23

¶24

175

¶25

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.37413 of 2015

¶27

Date : 19.12.2022

¶28

KGR/SSN

Srimat Prativadi Bhayankaram Mantraratnam v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srimat Prativadi Bhayankaram Mantraratnam v. 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

A.Vijay Kumar, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Yadavalli Koteswararao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Gurappasetty Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

G.Sreedhar Kumar Reddy, Chittoor Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. and 3 Ors.

K.Mohan Reddy, S/o. K.Muni Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

R.L.Prasad Reddy, Kadapa District and 4 Others Vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others