Remanded

Siddabathula Ksheera Sagara Sayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Aug 2023WP/17183/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order in four writ petitions held that the appellate authority violated natural justice by relying on a Tahsildar report not disclosed to the petitioners and failed to consider earlier favorable reports. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a de novo decision after furnishing copies and providing an opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

The proceeding D.Dis.No.1598/2018/D (KRRC) dated 03.08.2019 set aside. Matter remanded to Respondent No.3 to furnish report, provide opportunity for explanation, and pass orders after considering all

Siddabathula Ksheera Sagara Sayana, Vs The State of… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶3

WRIT PETITION Nos.17183, 17184, 17199 and

¶4

17202 of 2019

¶5

W.P.No.17183 of 2019

¶6

Siddabathula Ksheera Sagara Sayana, S/o Dr. Narasimha Rao, aged 50 years, R/o Green Book, Washington, USA, Represented by Registered General Power of Attorney Holder, Dr. Siddabathula Narasimha Rao, S/o Late Anjaiah, aged 74 years, R/o Pithapuram Colony, D.No.9-31-7, Visakhapatnam

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and two others

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. Vakati Venkata Gnanusha Counsel for respondents : GP for Revenue

¶12

W.P.No.17184 of 2019

¶13

Siddabathula Padmaja, W/o Subba Rao, aged 43 years, R/o Olive Lake, Washington, USA, Represented by Registered General Power of Attorney Holder, Dr. Siddabathula Narasimha Rao, S/o Late Anjaiah, aged 74 years, R/o Pithapuram Colony, D.No.9-31-7, Visakhapatnam.

… Petitioner

Versus

Page 2 of 19

SRSJ WP No.17183, 17184, 17199 and 17202 of 2019

¶18

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and two others

¶19

… Respondents

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. Vakati Venkata Gnanusha Counsel for respondents : GP for Revenue

¶21

W.P.No.17199 of 2019

¶22

Siddabathula Asha Rani, W/o Sri Hari, aged about 45 years, R/o St. Louis, USA, Represented by Registered General Power of Attorney Holder, Dr. Siddabathula Narasimha Rao, S/o Late Anjaiah, aged 74 years, R/o Pithapuram Colony, D.No.9-31-7, Visakhapatnam

¶23

… Petitioner

¶24

Versus

¶25

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and two others

¶26

… Respondents

¶27

Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. Vakati Venkata Gnanusha Counsel for respondents : GP for Revenue

¶28

W.P.No.17202 of 2019

¶29

Maddela Sandhya Kiran, W/o Siddabathula Ksheera Sagara Sayana, aged 43 years, R/o Green Book, Washington, USA, Represented by Registered General Power of Attorney Holder, Dr. Siddabathula Narasimha Rao, S/o Late Anjaiah, aged 74 years,

¶30

Page 3 of 19

¶31

SRSJ WP No.17183, 17184, 17199 and 17202 of 2019

¶32

R/o Pithapuram Colony, D.No.9-31-7, Visakhapatnam.

¶33

… Petitioner

¶34

Versus

¶35

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and two others

¶36

… Respondents

¶37

Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. Vakati Venkata Gnanusha Counsel for respondents : GP for Revenue

¶38

COMMON ORDER

¶39

W.P.No.17183 of 2019 is filed seeking the following

¶40

relief:

¶41

“… to issue appropriate writ order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Sub-Collector and SubDivisional Magistrate, Parvatipuram pertaining to his order in D.Dis No.1598/2018/D (KRRC) dated 03.08.2019 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the order of the Tahsildar, Therlam Mandal, in proceedings No.266/2017 dated 27.10.2017 and to quash both the said orders declaring that such orders are illegal, arbitrary, unjust and without proper application of the mind and against the evidence available on record and against the constitutional guarantees and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner pertaining to his lands in an extent of Ac.17-68 cents in Sy.No.6-1, 6-5P, 6-6P, 43-1, 43-3, 7-

¶42

Page 4 of 19

¶43

SRSJ WP No.17183, 17184, 17199 and 17202 of 2019

¶44

6, 7-2, 44-2P, 6-5P, 44-3, 6-6P, 7-8 of Velagavalasa Village, Therlam Mandal, Vizianagaram District.”

¶45

2. W.P.No.17184 of 2019 is filed seeking the following

¶46

relief:

¶47

“… to issue appropriate writ order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Sub-Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parvatipuram pertaining to her order in D.Dis No.1598/2018/D (KRRC) dated 03.08.2019 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the order of the Tahsildar, Therlam Mandal, in proceedings No.266/2017 dated 27.10.2017 and to quash both the said orders declaring that such orders are illegal, arbitrary, unjust and without proper application of the mind and against the evidence available on record and against the constitutional guarantees and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner pertaining to her lands in an extent of Ac.7-79 cents in Sy.No.45-1, 43-8, 44-5 and 44-4 of Velagavalasa Village, Therlam Mandal, Vizianagaram District.”

¶48

3. W.P.No.17199 of 2019 is filed seeking the following

¶49

relief:

¶50

“… to issue an appropriate writ order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Sub-Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parvatipuram pertaining to her order in D.Dis No.1598/2018/D (KRRC) dated 03.08.2019

¶51

Page 5 of 19

¶52

SRSJ WP No.17183, 17184, 17199 and 17202 of 2019

¶53

dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the order of the Tahsildar, Therlam Mandal, in proceedings No.266/2017 dated 27.10.2017 and to quash both the said orders declaring that such orders are illegal, arbitrary, unjust and without proper application of the mind and against the evidence available on record and against the constitutional guarantees and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner pertaining to her lands in an extent of Ac.5-81 cents in Sy.No.46-1 and 46-2 of Velagavalasa Village, Therlam Mandal, Vizianagaram District.”

¶54

4. W.P.No.17202 of 2019 is filed seeking the following

relief:

Page 6 of 19

SRSJ WP No.17183, 17184, 17199 and 17202 of 2019

¶59

8P of Velagavalasa Village, Therlam Mandal, Vizianagaram District.”

¶60

Since the subject matter in the above writ petitions is one and the same, they are disposed by this common order.

¶61

a) Petitioners purchased their respective extents of

¶62

lands, as referred to supra, under respective registered documents. Petitioners’ names were mutated in the revenue records. After due enquiry under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (for short ‘ the Act ’) records of rights were updated and consequently pattadar passbooks were issued in favour of the petitioners. Petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject properties.

¶63

b) While so, one Bathina Lakshmana and ten others filed a complaint before Sub-Collector, Parvathipuram alleging that the lands of petitioners and some other lands were assigned lands granted to their ancestors and sought for resumption and reassignment. Sub-Collector, Parvathipuram, vide orders, dated 08.12.2004 in S.R.No.10 of 2014 directed enquiry. The Tahsildar conducted enquiry and submitted report to respondent No.3 vide R.C.No.114/2015 HDT dated

¶64

Page 7 of 19

¶65

SRSJ WP No.17183, 17184, 17199 and 17202 of 2019

¶66

23.04.2015 stating that complaint is bogus and claimants failed to show any document in support of their claim.

¶67

c) Subsequently, Sub-Collector, Parvathipuram addressed letter vide R.C.No.665/2015/K.R.R.C. dated 20.05.2015 to respondent No.2 stating that on 19.05.2015 a representation was made by representatives of schedule caste community, Thelram village, alleging that the lands in survey Nos.6, 44, 7, 43, 45 and 46 were assigned in favour of schedule people and the same were Government lands under khata No.9999 up to the year, 2014. In the year, 2015, they were tampered as zeroyathi lands and requested to take steps to change the entries and do justice to them. Respondent No.3 further stated that as per copy of settlement fair adangal enclosed by them, the lands in aforesaid survey numbers are classified as grazing land but in the online 1B report, dated 05.05.2015, they were shown as zeroyathi dry lands. Therefore, respondent No.3 directed respondent No.2 to enquire into the matter and submit its remarks. Respondent No.2, upon receipt of the letter from respondent No.3 blocked online system in respect the lands in subject survey numbers and conducted detailed enquiry and submitted report vide

¶68

Page 8 of 19

¶69

SRSJ WP No.17183, 17184, 17199 and 17202 of 2019

¶70

R.C.No.147/2015/JA to respondent No.3, in May, 2015, which was signed on 25.05.2015.

¶71

d) Report submitted by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 discloses that persons who sold land to the petitioners are owners of the lands and their names were recorded as owners in Settlement Fair Adangal of 1954. They sold the property/lands in favour of six individuals including the petitioners and the lands are zeroyathi lands. Complainants are not the native persons and residents of Velagavalasa village.

¶72

e) Petitioners along with others filed W.P.No.37204 of 2015 to open the online system in respect of their lands. As the matter stood thus, on 07.10.2017, respondent No.2 served show-cause notice in R.C.No.266 of 2017, under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Rules’ ) to the petitioners alleging that they purchased assigned lands and directed them to submit explanation within fifteen days from the date of receipt of said notice. Petitioners submitted explanations. However, without considering the same, respondent No.2 passed resumption order on 27.10.2017.

¶73

Page 9 of 19

¶74

SRSJ WP No.17183, 17184, 17199 and 17202 of 2019

¶75

Against the said order, petitioners preferred statutory appeals before respondent No.3, in November, 2017.

¶76

f) As things stood thus, complaining interference of the authorities, petitioners also filed W.P.No.36926 of 2017. The learned Single Judge of composite High Court passed interim order, dated 03.11.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.45847 of 2017 directing the respondents therein not to interfere with possession of the petitioners therein. Therefore, the appellate authority issued proceedings dated 14.02.2018 observing that in view pendency of the issue before the High Court, no further action is required in the appeals. Against said proceedings, W.P.No.11949 of 2018 and two other writ petitions were filed. Said writ petitions were disposed of on 24.04.2018, directing the appellate authority to consider the appeals on merits and pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, respondent No.3 by order, dated 03.08.2019, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the above writ petitions are filed.

¶77

Heard Sri Radha Krishna, learned counsel representing

¶78

Ms. Vakati Venkata Gnanusha, learned counsel for the

¶79

Page 10 of 19

¶80

SRSJ WP No.17183, 17184, 17199 and 17202 of 2019

¶81

petitioners and Assistant Government Pleader, Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶82

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners purchased their respective properties referred to supra, under registered documents. The Tahsildar, Therlam Mandal, after conducting enquiry under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, vide proceedings DC No.954 of 2007, updated records of rights and issued pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioners. He would further submit that the reports submitted by Tahsildars vide Dis.No.114/2015/HDT, dated 23.04.2015 and Rc.No.147/ 2015/JA, dated 25.05.2015 proved that lands are not assigned lands. However, the authorities failed to consider the same.

¶83

Learned counsel would further submit that as per Rule 3 of the Rules, notice in Form No.2 was issued to the petitioners and the same was received by the petitioners on 07.10.2017. Petitioners submitted explanation, dated 27.10.2017 by way of registered post. He would submit that on 27.10.2017, Tahsildar passed the order based on the report of MRI, Therlam dated 27.09.2017. Learned counsel

¶84

Page 11 of 19

¶85

SRSJ WP No.17183, 17184, 17199 and 17202 of 2019

¶86

submits that against said order of the Tahsildar, statutory appeals were filed and the appellate authority i.e. respondent No.3, without assigning any reasons, simply based on the report in Lr.Rc.No.266/2017/SA dated 11.09.2018 submitted by Tahsildar, dismissed the appeals. He would also submit that copy of Tahsildar’s report was not furnished to the petitioners. Thus, prays to set aside the order impugned.

¶87

Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that notice in Form No.2 was issued to the petitioners calling upon them to submit explanation. However, petitioners could not submit explanation and hence, Tahsildar, Therlam Mandal, passed order of resumption. Against said order, statutory appeals under Section 4(A)(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act 9/1977 (for short ‘the Act 9/1977’ ) were filed before respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 in turn, on careful consideration of material available on record dismissed the appeals. He would submit that against order of respondent No.3, appeal would lie under Section 4(A)(2) of the Act 9/1977. Petitioners, without filing appeal, filed the above writ petitions. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petitions.

¶88

Page 12 of 19

¶89

SRSJ WP No.17183, 17184, 17199 and 17202 of 2019

¶90

As seen from the record, there is no dispute that petitioners purchased lands referred to supra, under registered documents. It is also not disputed fact that some villagers made complaint on 08.12.2014 to the then District Collector. The Tahsildar vide letter No.114/2015/HDT dated 23.04.2015 submitted report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram, stating that the complainants could not produce any documentary proof. Issuance of D-form pattas was not shown in the records and the complaint was bogus in nature. Again, another representation was made by caste representatives, on 19.05.2015 to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3, in turn, addressed letter to the Tahsildar on 20.05.2015 and directed the Tahsildar to offer personal remarks in the matter, in connection with tampering of entries in webland, within two days. The Tahsildar, in turn submitted report, which was signed on 25.05.2015. The report submitted by Tahsildar to RDO discloses that as per Settlement Fair Adangal, 1954, lands in above survey numbers were classified as ‘Sarkar Punja’ which are zeroyathi lands in nature and the names of landowners were recorded. The report of Tahsildar further discloses about purchase of the lands by the petitioners vide registered documents and

¶91

Page 13 of 19

¶92

SRSJ WP No.17183, 17184, 17199 and 17202 of 2019

¶93

also issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioners and others. Letter ‘D’ has been incorporated mistakenly against the extent of lands of the pattadars therein while entries were updated in the system. Persons, who made representation, have no right or title over the above lands and they are not native persons and residents of Velagavalasa village.

¶94

As the matter stood thus, after submission of report, dated 25.05.2015 by Tahsildar, notices in form No.2, dated 22.09.2017 were issued to the petitioners, stating that petitioners purchased assigned lands and the same were received by the petitioners on 07.12.2017. Explanations dated 27.12.2017 were submitted on behalf of the petitioners, by way of registered post.

¶95

A perusal of the order of the Tahsildar would manifest that the Tahsildar passed order by filling up the blanks. The Tahsildar did not consider the earlier two reports submitted by the authority to R.D.O and District Collector. Against the order passed by Tahsildar, statutory appeals were filed before respondent No.3.

¶96

Page 14 of 19

¶97

SRSJ WP No.17183, 17184, 17199 and 17202 of 2019

¶98

In the grounds of appeal, reference was made to the proceedings of Tahsildar in R.C.No.147/2015/JA dated 25.05.2015. A specific ground was raised stating that the Tahsildar failed to give a finding with regard to alleged assignments and the proceedings under which assignments were made. It was also specifically mentioned about the failure of Tahsildar to consider report vide R.C.No.147/2015/JA dated 25.05.2015.

¶99

Reports of Tahsildar, Therlam Mandal, vide R.C.No.114/2015 HDT dated 23.04.2015 and

¶100

Rc.No.147/2015/JA dated 25.05.2015 are part of the record. However, the appellate authority, by placing reliance on Tahsildar’s report, R.C.No.266/2017/SA dated 11.09.2018, dismissed the appeal. As per said report of Tahsildar, lands purchased by the petitioners were assigned and the petitioners purchased the same in violation of the conditions of grant.

¶101

It is pertinent to mention here that the report dated 11.09.2018 was not even furnished to the petitioners. Failure

¶102

to furnish copy of the report dated 11.09.2018, to the petitioners, when the appellate authority places reliance,

¶103

Page 15 of 19

¶104

SRSJ WP No.17183, 17184, 17199 and 17202 of 2019

¶105

amounts to violation of principles of Natural Justice. Further calling for remarks/report from the officer, against whose order, appeal is filed, is not permissible.

¶106

In Kalari Nagabhushana Rao v. The Collector, Panchayat Wing Guntur and Others¹ , learned Single Judge of composite High Court held as under:

¶107

“Though the District Collector must have expressed some opinion in his original order, it is neither proper nor permissible for him to once again state to the appellate authority, unless it is provided for in the statute, that his order was correct and the appeal must be rejected as it is devoid of any merit and the appellate authority should not make use of such opinion or report against the appellant without giving him a reasonable and fair opportunity to explain his stand. The very practice of calling for reports or para-wise remarks on the appeal memorandum by the statutory quasi-judicial appellate tribunal or authority unless specifically provided for in the statute or the rules framed thereunder, must be deprecated. Such a procedure is not only unjust and improper but would also prejudice to a great extent the case of the very, person who had come to the appellate tribunal with a definite case that what has been done by the original authority was illegal, incorrect and unjust. Such a practice may be there for a number of years but it must be put an end to. The earlier such practices are given up, the better for the concerned parties and people at large. Proper and independent exercise of

¶108

1 AIR 1978 AP 444

¶109

Page 16 of 19

¶110

SRSJ WP No.17183, 17184, 17199 and 17202 of 2019

¶111

powers and functions by a statutory quasi judicial appellate authority or tribunal is essential and necessary for the administration of justice.”

¶112

Thus, as seen from the order of the appellate authority, appellate authority relied upon the remarks submitted by the Tahsildar and decided the appeal even without furnishing a copy of the order. Hence the order of appellate authority is suffering from violation of principles of natural justice.

¶113

Thus, three reports of the Tahsildar, Therlam (two reports of 2015 and one report of 2018) are available in respect of the lands purchased by the petitioners. Inspite of the specific grounds in the grounds of appeal about the earlier reports of 2015, appellate authority failed to consider the earlier two reports referred to supra.

¶114

A perusal of the order passed by respondent No.3 also does not indicate as to when DKT pattas were issued in favour of the assignees. The tabular form showing particulars of pattadars mentioned in the appeal does not contain the date of assignment of lands in favour of said pattadars. As seen from the report, dated 25.05.2015 of Tahsildar, the

¶115

Page 17 of 19

¶116

SRSJ WP No.17183, 17184, 17199 and 17202 of 2019

¶117

names of owners are shown against the aforesaid survey numbers and respective extents, as per the Settlement Fair Adangal of 1954. The same names were shown in the report, dated 11.09.2018 of Tahslidar. The earlier report, as pointed out supra, the then Tahsildar opined that there is no record to show that the lands are assigned lands. However, in report, dated 11.09.2018, another Tahsildar opined that lands are assigned lands. Respondent No.3, being appellate authority under the Act, should consider all these aspects.

¶118

Apart from the above discussion a perusal of the order of the appellate authority, as stated supra, does not indicate any reasons, which are heart and soul of an order, passed by the authority. In the absence of reasons, the order passed by the appellate authority becomes vulnerable.

¶119

The order of the appellate authority runs into 14 pages. Up to 11 pages, the appellate authority extracted pleadings. Para Nos.11 and 12, are the extracts of provisions of the Act. Thus, in the opinion of this court the order of appellate authority is liable to be set aside.

¶120

Accordingly, the proceeding in D.Dis.No./1598/2018/D (KRRC), dated 03.08.2019 is set aside and the matter is

¶121

Page 18 of 19

¶122

SRSJ WP No.17183, 17184, 17199 and 17202 of 2019

¶123

remanded to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 shall furnish copy of the report submitted by Tahsildar vide 266/2017/SA dated 11.09.2018, to the petitioners, enabling them to submit objections, if any.

¶124

Respondent No.3 shall provide an opportunity to the petitioners to submit explanation, if any, and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law after taking into consideration, the reports of Tahsildar vide 114/15 HDT dated 23.04.2015 and 147/2015/JA dated 25.05.2015 and communicate copy of the order to the petitioners.

¶125

Learned Single Judge of this Court, while ordering notice before admission on 01.11.2019, stayed proceedings of respondent No.3 and said order is continued. In view of the same, respondents shall not take any coercive action pursuant to the order of resumption, till fresh order is passed by respondent No.3.

¶126