Dismissed

Gudala Amara, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Sept 2023WP/10910/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the dispossessing of a petitioner from land, the High Court dismissed the petition. It held that disputed questions of fact regarding the genuineness of pattas and the authenticity of record-of-rights entries are not to be examined under Article 226, relying on precedents that revenue entries do not confer title.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Gudala Amara, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA^{PRADESH :: AMARAVAT1;.::}

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMB TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

~ :
~
` ~-

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 10910 OF 2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gudala Amara, W/o. Basavaiah, aged about 54 years, Agriculturist, Rio. Gudavalluru, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District ...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department,

¶12

A.P. Secretariat, Amaravati, at Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶13

The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore.

¶14

The Joint Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali Revenue Division, Kavali, SPSR

¶16

Nellore District.

¶17

The Tahsildar, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from an extent of Ac. 4-00 cents of dry land in Sy. No. 624/1, situated in Gudavalluru Village, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, against principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the above said land without following due process of law.

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶21

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 direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from an extent of Ac. 4-00 cents of dry land in Sy. No. 624/1, situated in Gudavalluru Village, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶23

Between:

¶24

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Fri. Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Amaravati, at Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶25

The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore.

¶26

The Joint Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore.

¶27

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali Revenue Division, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District.

¶28

The Tahsildar, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶29

...PETITIONER AND

¶30

Gudala Amara, W/o. Basavaiah, aged about 54 years, Agriculturist, R/o, Gudavalluru, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District

¶31

...RESPONDENTS

¶32

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 vacate the interim order granted on 06-07-2020 in WP. 10910/2020 and dismiss the writ petition.

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. M RAVINDRA

¶34

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶35

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶37

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶38

WRIT PETITION No.10910 of 2020

¶39

Gudala Amara, W/o. Basavaiah, aged about 54 years, Agriculturist, R/o. Gudavalluru, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶40

Petitioner

¶41

Versus

¶42

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Amaravati, at Velagapudi, Guntur District and four others.

¶43

Respondents

¶44

Counsel for the petitioners : Sri M.Ravindra

¶45

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 : GP for Revenue

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of

¶48

the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶49

"... to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from an extent of Ac.4.00 cents of dry land in Sy.No.624/ 1 situated in Gudavalluru Village, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, against principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India `" and consequently direct the respondents not to

¶50

Page 2 of 8

¶51

SRS, J W. P. No.10910 o12020

¶52

dispossess the petitioner from the above said land without following due process of law and pass such other order or orders ...."

¶53

In the affidavit, it was contended, inter-alia, that petitioner's .son was assigned D-Form Patta by the then Mandal Revenue Officer in respect of land of an extent of Ac.4-00 cents in dry land, subsequently sub-divided as Sy.No.624-1 in Gudavalluru Village, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District vide F.Dis.No.207/ 1417 dated 26.11.2001. After assignment of Patta, petitioner's son secured job and left the petitioner and her husband. Revenue Officials at the instance of village elders recognized the petitioner's possession and updated the Record of Rights (for short `RoR'). Accordingly, the Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed were issued in favour of the petitioner. The 5th respondent, at the instance of local political leaders, entered petitioner's land on 24.06.2020 and started making layout. Petitioner resisted the attempts and filed the above writ petition.

¶54

Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 5th respondent. It was contended inter-alia that an extent of AcJ9-30 cents in Sy.No.624 of Gudavalluru Village is

¶55

Page 3 of 8

¶56

SRS, J W.P.No.10910 o12020

¶57

classified as `Dotted Land' as per R.S.R. Out of an extent of Ac.19-34 cents, an extent of Ac.4-00 cents is proposed for issuance of house sites to the beneficiaries. The Mandal Revenue Inspector enquired and submitted report. As per the said report, petitioner's son by name Gudala Srinivasa Rao is the D-Form Patta holder who is working as SGT (Government Teacher) in Kothapalli Village of Kavali Mandal and there is no cultivation in the land. On the verification of D-Register, no pattas were issued on 26.11.2001. The patta filed by the petitioner is fake patta. Basing on the fake patta, petitioner got Pattadar Passbook and necessary action will be initiated for creation of the fake patta and other records. There is no sub-division in respect of Sy.No.624. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶58

Heard Sri M.Ravindra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶59

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions as per the averments in the writ affidavit and learned Government Pleader for Revenue reiterated the contentions as per the averments in the counter affidavit.

¶60

Page 4 of 8

¶61

SRS, J W.P.No.10910 of 2020

¶62

Copy of the Patta, filed along with the writ petition, depicts that the then Mandal Revenue Officer issued D-Form Patta on 26.11.2001 in favour of the petitioner's son in respect of land of an extent of Ac.4-00 cents in Sy.No.624. A perusal of the copy of patta filed along with the writ petition does not contain any proceedings of the issuing authority. However, RoR were updated in the name of the petitioner. As seen from the Pattadar Passbook issued in favour of the petitioner, it was signed by the Tahsildar on 04.03.2008. The entry was recorded in respect of land of an extent of Ac.4-00 cents wherein the property was assigned vide F.Dis.No.207/ 1417 dated 26.11.2001. By that time when the property was mentioned in the Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed, petitioner is already in possession of the wetlands of extents of Ac.0-87 cents in Sy.No. 146/8 and Ac. 1.21 cents in Sy.No.146/4, as seen from the entries in passbook. In the remarks column it was mentioned as `hereditary'.

¶63

Thus, as seen from the entries, petitioner cannot claim the status of landless poor. When the alleged assignment was made in favour of petitioner's son, and the son is alive (SGT teacher), updating RoR in favour of petitioner creates any amount suspicion qua genuineness of the DKT Patta. In view

¶64

Page 5 of 8

¶65

SRS, J W.N.No.10910 of 2020

¶66

of the same, the presumption available under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 may not be applied to the facts of this case.

¶67

The writ affidavit does not contain a specific pleading as to the date of petitioner's son securing the job. No rejoinder was filed to the counter affidavit filed by the^5th respondent regarding plea of assignment patta being fake and created.

¶68

It is a settled position of law that the entries in Revenue records will not confer the title. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Balwant Singh Vs. Daulat Singh', while discussing the aspect of mutation in revenue records referred to Sawarni Vs.

¶69

Inder Kaur2, and observed that:

¶70

"7. ... Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment."

¶71

In Jitender Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:

¶72

'(1997)7 SCC 137

¶73

2 (1996) 6 SCC 223

¶74

3 (1997) ~S.CC 137

¶75

Page 6 of 8

¶76

SRS. J W.P,No.10910 of 2020

¶77

"8. In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner4, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose", i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court... ..."

¶78

When a patta was issued in the name of son, and the son is alive, mutating name of the petitioner in RoR itself creates suspicion qua the genuineness of DKT patta. As seen from the averments in the counter affidavit, it was also stated that action will be initiated against the erring Officer regarding updating of RoR. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, normally shall not go into disputed questions of facts.

¶79

In view of the discussion supra, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶80

In number of cases, counter affidavits are being field either by the Tahsildars, Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, specifically contending that the DKT pattas filed a

¶81

° (2007) 6 SCC 186

¶82

Page 7 of 8

¶83

SRS, J W.P.No.10910 012020

¶84

are fake and no DKT register is available. However, Records of Rights are being updated in the names of patta holders. If the pattas are fake or crated, it is the responsibility of the Tahsildars ' concerned to verify about the same before updating Record of Rights. However, in all the cases, the Tahsildars concerned are updating Records of Rights. In view of the same, the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department shall take necessary remedial measures in curbing such illegal acts and to initiate necessary action against the erring Officers.

¶85

Registry shall communicate copy of this order to the learned Principal Secretary, Revenue Department.

¶86

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶87

Sid- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶88

I/TRUE COPY//

¶89

SECfIO'J OFFICER

¶90

To,