Disposed

Rama Gurrappa v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Mar 2023WP/20000/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Writ Petition and Contempt Petition filed by Sri Rama Gurrappa alleging violation of an interim order. The Court confirmed the cancellation of the petitioner's DKT patta for forest land and directed him to seek alternate land from the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ and Contempt cases disposed of. Petitioner directed to approach competent authority for alternate land.

Rama Gurrappa Vs The state of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.20000 OF 2017 & C.C.No.335 of 2023

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

Heard Sri T.Divakar Reddy, Learned Counsel

¶4

appearing for the Contempt Petitioner and Sri D.Kasim Saheb, Learned Counsel appearing for the Forest Department.

¶5

It is informed at the Bar that the Counsel on record in W.P.No.20000 of 2017, since been appointed as Government Pleader, Sri T.Divakar Reddy, Learned Counsel has instructions to appear for the Contempt Petitioner (though he has not filed vakalat).

¶6

The present Contempt Petition has been filed by the Writ Petitioner, complaining of the violation of the Interim Order passed by this Court dated 14.09.2017 in W.P.No.20000 of 2017. The said Interim Order dated 14.09.2017 in W.P.No.20000 of 2017 reads as under:

¶7

“In view of D-form patta possessed by the petitioner, the Forest Department shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question so long as the patta stands in his name.”

¶8

¶9

The alleged contemnors namely the Officials of the Department of Forest have filed Counter-Affidavit in C.C.No.335 of 2023. Along with the Counter-Affidavit, the Official Respondents have also placed on record the Proceedings bearing Ref.No.E2/3078/2022, dated 19.02.2023. On perusal of these Proceedings, it is seen that the Proceedings were issued by the Joint Collector, in the dispute between the District Forest Officer, Kadapa and Sri Rama Gurrappa. Sri Rama Gurrappa is the Petitioner in the Writ Petition as well as in the Contempt Case.

¶10

In the said Proceedings, while admitting the fact that Sri Rama Gurrappa was granted DKT Patta, it is stated that due to mistake of fact, the land that in fact was handed over to the Department of Forest under Section 24 of the Forest Act for the purpose of compensatory afforestation as part of Telugu-Ganga Project (vide G.O.Ms.No.167 dated 06.06.1990) was allotted to the Writ Petitioner by issuing DKT Patta. Relevant portion of the Proceedings bearing Ref. E2/3078/2022, dated 19.02.2023, is re-produced hereunder:

¶11

¶12

“14. With regard to claim of the Respondent, it is observed that he depends upon DKT Patta granted and Pattadar pass book was issued. On verification of report and records placed by the District Forest Officer, Y.S.R.(T) Division, Kadapa, it is revealed that the subject land was included in Gopalapuram CA Block and Notified U/s 24, the Compensatory Afforestation Area is taken over under Telugu Ganga Project Vide G.O. Ms.No. 167, dt. 06-06-1990, however, the subject land assigned to one Sri Rama Gurrappa S/o Pullaiah under mistake of fact.

¶13

As per B.S.O 15 Para (18) (1) “at any time after the passing of the original or appellate decision, the collector is satisfied that there has been a material irregularity in the procedure or that the decision was grossly inequitable or that it exceeded the powers of the officer who passed it or that it was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or mis-representation he may set aside, cancel or in any way modify the decision passed by an officer sub-ordinate to him. No order should be reversed or modified adversely to the respondent without giving the respondent a notice to show cause against the action proposed to be taken adversely to him.” In the instant case, it is proved that a material irregularity in the procedure in the present issue are emphasized and clear evident supported with regard to mistake of fact during grant of DKT Patta to Sri Rama Gurrappa S/o Pullaiah in Sy.No.536 extent.2.48 Acres in Rekalakunta Village of B. Mattam Mandal, this Authority is empowered to cancel the patta under paragraph (18) of B.S.O 15.

¶14

In the light of above discussions, I hereby issue orders for cancellation of DKT Patta issued to the respondent for the land in Sy.No.536 extent.2.48 Acres in Rekalakunta Village of B. Mattam Mandal under paragraph (18) of B.S.O 15 and also hereby order for deletion of entries made in all the revenue records which are entered in favour of the respondent for the land in Sy.No.536 extent.2.48 acres of Rekalakunta Village of B. Mattam Mandal.

¶15

In view of the above reasons, the Tahsildar, B. Mattam is hereby directed to take necessary action for incorporation of changes in all revenue records duly deleting the name of the Respondent from the webland and enter the same as Forest in webland.

¶16

Further, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Badvel is hereby directed to submit proposals for

¶17

¶18

providing alternative land to the respondent, if land is available duly following the procedure in vogue. Accordingly, the case is disposed off.”

¶19

In view of the passing of these Orders by which the

¶20

DKT patta granted in favour of the Writ Petitioner expressly stands cancelled on account of the admission of the fact that the land belong to the Department of Forest, it has to be confirmed that the land now vests with the Department of Forest under Section 24 of the Forest Act, for compensatory afforestation. Whereas, in the Said Order dated 19.02.2023 a direction was already given to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Badvel, to submit proposal for providing alternate land to the Respondent (namely the Writ Petitioner Sri Rama Gurrappa). Hence, in view of this direction, the Court is of the view that in terms of the final directions given by the Joint Collector in his proceedings bearing Ref.No. E2/3078/2022, dated 19.02.2023, the Writ Petitioner may approach the Competent Authority for grant of alternate land. This is in the light of the fact that the Joint Collector has admitted to the fact that the Writ Petitioner is in fact granted DKT Patta but wrong land was assigned to him on account of mistake of fact and that the

¶21

¶22

right of the Writ Petitioner to be entitled for alternate land

¶23

is not only legally intact but it is also conceded by the Joint Collector.

¶24

Hence, the Writ Petition and the Contempt Case are

¶25

disposed of in terms of this Order. No order as to costs.

¶26

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in

¶27

terms of this order.

¶28

G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

Dt: 10.03.2023

VNS

120

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.20000 of 2017 & C.C.No.335 OF 2023

¶35

10.03.2023

¶36

vns

Rama Gurrappa v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Gurrappa v. The 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T Hrushi Kesava Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

T Hrushi Kesava Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

T Hrushi Kesava Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Barre Sankarao Vs the State of Ap

Konala Saheb Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Rama Gurrappa Vs Neerabh Kumar Prasad