Disposed

Yakasiri Devasenamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Mar 2022WP/42250/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the inaction of the revenue authorities in completing an enquiry under the Andhra Pradesh Inams Act to convert land to Ryotwari. The Court held that delaying proceedings citing a pending Advocate General's opinion was untenable and violated fundamental rights, ordering completion of enquiry within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 4th respondent to complete the enquiry and issue Ryotwari Patta within three months.

Yakasiri Devasenamma Vs The State of Andhra… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.42250 OF 2015

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶4

of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4^th respondent in not completing the enquiry under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversation into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 4^th respondent complete the enquiry and convert the Inam land into ryotwari and issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioner sin respect the land covered by S.No.1 an extent of Ac.21-73, Ac.22-82, Ac.10-40 and Ac.26-80 of Oduru Village, Chillakuru Mandal.”

¶6

The petitioners purchased land admeasuring an extent of Ac.21-73 cents, Ac.22-82 cents, Ac.10-40 cents and Ac.26-80 cents in Sy.No.1 of Guduru Village, Chillakallu Mandal. The revenue authorities also issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of predecessors in title of the petitioners and entered their names in village accounts as pattdars and enjoyers.

¶7

The petitioners filed O.S.Nos.168, 169, 130 and 131 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gudur against the first respondent for declaration of title and consequential injunction and the said suits were decreed on 02.04.2012.

¶8

On the basis of decree and sale deeds, the petitioners made an application in Form 6-A to the fourth respondent for issue of pattadar pass book and title deed and mutation of the names of the petitioners in the revenue records on payment of requisite fee. The petitioners approached the fourth respondent several times for issuance of pattadar pass book in their favour, but no action was taken. Thereupon, the petitioners were compelled to file W.P.No.16960 of 2013 before this Court with a direction to the fourth respondent to consider the claims of the petitioners for

¶9

MSM,J WP_42250_2015

¶10

¶11

issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed. W.P.No.16960 of 2013 was disposed of with a direction to the fourth respondent to consider the claims of the petitioners for issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed. But, no action was taken and thereupon, C.C.No.1655 of 2013 was filed. After receipt of notice in contempt case, the fourth respondent issued an endorsement dated 18.10.2013 informing that the request for issue of pattadar pass books and title deeds will be taken up immediately after conversion of Inam Land into Ryotwari under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition And Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short „the Act‟). Though Endorsement dated 18.10.2013 was issued, till date no action was taken and therefore, the petitioners challenged the inaction of the respondents in not disposing of the request of these petitioners.

¶12

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed on record the instructions obtained by the respondents from the office of Tahsildar, Chillakur, SPSR Nellore District, stating that, as large extent was involved, the respondents thought it appropriate to get the opinion from learned Advocate General and opinion from the learned Advocate General is awaiting to proceed further in the matter.

¶13

On the basis of the instructions dated 26.02.2022, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, as on date, no opinion is issued and therefore, further proceedings shall not be taken by the respondents and grant sufficient time to dispose of the representation of the request of these petitioners.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶15

MSM,J WP_42250_2015

¶16

¶17

The simple request made by these petitioners is to issue Ryotwari Patta in favour of these petitioners after completing Enquiry under Section 3 of the Act. The respondents also admitted in the instructions that steps were taken and notices were issued to several persons who are interested in the land, while awaiting for opinion from the learned Advocate General of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. The details of letter addressed to the respondents and notices issued to various persons were not placed on record by the respondents. In any view of the matter, Notice in Form-I was issued on 18.10.2013 to the petitioners directing them to appear before the Tahsildar, Chillakur Mandal on 06.11.2013 at 10:30 a.m for the purpose of enquiry. Though more than eight years time has elapsed, no proceedings were taken up by the respondents, except issue of Notices in Form-I to various persons.

¶18

But, for disposal of claim of these petitioners, the respondents require opinion of learned Advocate General of High Court of Andhra Pradesh and on such lame excuse, the respondents are not disposing of the request of these petitioners. Therefore, for disposal of the request of these petitioners for issue of Ryotwari Patta under the Act after completing the enquiry, no opinion is required from the learned Advocate General. Even if the opinion is required, they can obtain opinion within no time. Causing delay in disposal of the application of these petitioners for issue of Ryotwari Patta in their favour on the lame excuse of awaiting opinion from the learned Advocate General is nothing but denial of Right To Property guaranteed under Article 300-A and Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the inaction of Respondent No.4 is in violation of Article 21 and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, thereby, Respondent No.4 is directed to complete the enquiry

¶19

MSM,J WP_42250_2015

¶20

¶21

and issue Ryotwari Patta in favour of these petitioners subject to their eligibility, after conducting necessary enquiry, strictly adhering to the procedure under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition And Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 and Rules framed thereunder, within three months from today.

¶22

With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶23

also stand closed.

¶24

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶25

Date:07.03.2022 SP

Yakasiri Devasenamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yakasiri Devasenamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal

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

Kakuturu Ravindra Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

P Ravanamma, Prakasam Dist Vs the State of Ap and Anr.

Smt. Kamala Mercy, Vs The State of Ap.

Gattamaneni Adhi Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Aravapalli Manikya Rao Vs The Court of Maintenance Tribunal

Pappu Sreedhar Vs S Vara Kumar