Disposed

K.Israil, v. The District Collector

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Dec 2023WP/2230/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court denied an application for adjournment and disposed of the writ petition, observing that disputed questions of fact prevented determination of title under Article 226. The Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to treat the petitioners' representation as an appeal under Section 4A and decide it within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada to consider and decide the petitioners' representation as an appeal under Section 4A(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transf

K.Israil, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 2230 of 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Sri Y. Subbarao, learned GP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri S. K. Abdul Rasheed, learned counsel, representing Sri Srinivas Dammalapati, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7 and 11 request for adjournment.

¶5

The writ petition pertains to the year 2013 and is old one.

¶6

Previously, on 17.11.2023 following order was passed:

¶7

“No representation for the petitioners.

¶8

The matter pertains to the year 2013.

¶9

Since the matter has been listed for the first time after 13.06.2014,

¶10

list on 01.12.2023 under the caption „for dismissal‟.”

¶11

On 01.12.2023 the matter was heard parly and the following order

¶12

was passed.

¶13

“Sri A. P. Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner argued through virtual mode. After some arguments, he prays the matter to be posted on 05.12.2023 to place the relevant judgments.

¶14

Post on 05.12.2023.”

¶15

The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit till date.

¶16

Under the circumstances I do not find any reason to adjourn the

¶17

matter. The request for adjournment is rejected.

¶18

No representation for the rest of respondent Nos.4, 8 to 10, 12 to 14.

¶19

Heard Sri A. P. Suresh Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶20

through virtual mode.

¶21

RNT, J WP No.2230 of 2013

¶22

¶23

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

¶24

been filed for the following relief:

¶25

“….to issue a Writ order or direction, especially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to resume the lands comprised in R.S.No.24 admeasuring Ac.2.41 cents and land in R.S.No.22 admeasuring 99 cents situated at Torragunttapalem village and hamlet of Chillakallu Gram Panchayat, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District, restore the same to the petitioners or pass such other orders…..”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners belong to the scheduled community and their father was assigned land, admeasuring Ac.2.42 cents falling in R.S.No.24, situated at Torraguntapalem, Hamlet of Chillakallu Gram Panchayat, Jaggayyapeta Mandal. The name of the petitioners’ father Sri Karise Benjamin was also shown as Pattadar in the Revenue Records and Adangals up to 1405 Fasli, which corresponds to the year 1996. He submits that after the death of the petitioners’ father on 26.09.2001, the petitioners being the legal heirs were in possession and occupation of the assigned land, but in the year 2008 they were dispossessed. He further submits that in that regard a complaint was made in the year 2012, upon which, the Tahsildar Jaggayyapeta made an endorsement inter alia submitting that the right and title holding and enjoyment in respect of that land shall be as per the ‘present records’ and hence the petitioners were informed that their right is not valid.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners, with respect to the right of the petitioners on the death of their father said to be the assignee, submits that in view of the provisions of Sections 3, 4 and the definition of ‘transfer’ under

¶28

RNT, J WP No.2230 of 2013

¶29

¶30

Section 2 (vi) of the A. P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act 1977 and the petitioners being the legal heirs, the assigned land shall devolve on them on the death of original assignee their father, and consequently, they are entitled for resumption of possession from the private respondent, the person, in possession, which in his submission, is unauthorized occupation of the assigned land. He has placed reliance in the cases of Rayavarapu Palakondaiah v.

¶31

Revenue Divisional Officer¹ , Uppu Pandaiah v. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sydapuram and Ors.² and Katta Yesuratnam v. Commissioner, Land Revenue, A.P.Hyderabad³ , to submit that considering the object of the Act, even if there is breach or violation of the conditions of the assignment by

¶32

the assignee, but if it is for the first time, the assignee or his legal heir shall be entitled to restoration/resumption of possession, if it is reasonably practicable and possible to restore the land.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the endorsement, the said land was acquired by the Government though in his submission it was the private land of the petitioners’ grand-father from whom it came to the petitioners’ father and as such, the said averment is not correct as mentioned in the endorsement. He further submits that as per the endorsement, some enquiry was made and in such enquiry it was revealed that the conditional patta in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.2.41 cents in R.S.No.24 was recorded in favour of Kattikola Devadanam. He submits that as

¶34

1 1999 (3) ALD 612

¶35

2 AIR 1993 AP 132

¶36

3 1993 (1) ALT 200

¶37

RNT, J WP No.2230 of 2013

¶38

¶39

to how it came to be recorded in the name of Kottikola Devadanam, who is a stranger, it was not disclosed in the endorsement. He further submits that as per the endorsement, notices were issued under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 to the Vendor and Purchasers. He submits that such endorsement is also vague, as to whom the notices were issued and when. With respect to the sale transactions, as mentioned in the endorsement i.e., made prior to the year 1927, learned counsel for the petitioners disputes the same and submits that such endorsement is also vague not specific and also incorrect. With respect to the further endorsement that in the year 1932 while preparing Re-survey settlement Register (RSR) it was wrongly printed and in that regard the then Tahsildar issued proceedings in RCA.457/2011 dated 24.10.2011 declaring the disputed land as private land. Learned counsel for the petitioners disputes the endorsement with respect to the factual position.

¶40

He submits that feeling aggrieved from such endorsement, the petitioners filed appeal to the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada on 05.03.2012. He submits that the matter is still pending and their appeal has not been considered and decided yet.

¶41

He has further submitted that the appeal is maintainable under Section 4A of A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act 1977.

¶42

Sri Y. Subbarao, learned GP for Revenue submits that the petitioners have in fact not filed appeal, but they have submitted a legal notice against the endorsement of the Tahsildar.

¶43

RNT, J WP No.2230 of 2013

¶44

¶45

I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the

¶46

material on record.

¶47

The endorsement of the Tahsildar reads as under:

¶48

“ENDORSEMENT

¶49

Office of the Tahsildar, Jaggayyapeta Ref. (a)97/2012 Dated: 31.1.2012

¶50

Sri Karise Isrial and others residents of Tirumalagiri have submitted their petition Nos.35341 and 35342 in Prajavani requesting to resume their lands to an extent of Ac.2.41 cents in R.S.No.24 of Totraguntapalem village, as the said land was acquired by the government.

¶51

Caused enquiry in the said matter. In the village revenue record i.e. Resettlement Register of Totraguntapalem village the Conditional Patta in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.2.41 cents in R.S.No.24 has been recorded in favour of Kattikola Devadanam. Therefore, as per the provisions of Prohibition of Assigned Lands Act, notices have been issued to the vendor and purchasers.

¶52

In pursuance of the registered documents in respect of the said land, the sale transactions were done prior to the year 1927 itself. However, in the year 1932 while preparing the R.S.R it is wrongly printed and in this regard the then Tahsildar of this office issued proceedings in Rc.No.A457/2011 dated 24.10.2021 declaring the land to an extent of Ac.2.41 cents in R.S.No.24 of Totraguntapalem village as private land.

¶53

Therefore, the right and title holding and enjoyment in respect of the said land shall be as per the present records and hence, hereby informed that the others right is not valid.

¶54

Sd/-Tahsildar, Jaggayyapeta Mandal Krishna District.”

¶55

In view of the endorsement of the Tahsildar, which has been mentioned above, the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact, the determination of which, cannot be made in the exercise of writ jurisdiction

¶56

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as for determination of such

¶57

RNT, J WP No.2230 of 2013

¶58

¶59

questions, evidence would be required. The petitioners have not filed the assignments in favour of their father. In view of the endorsement of the Tahsildar, based on some enquiry in which the conditional patta was found to be recorded in favour of a different person and all other factual aspects as record, I find that it would not be appropriate for this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction to consider the documents annexed by the petitioners and record a finding on factual aspect, on such consideration.

¶60

Section 4A of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 reads as under:

¶61

“ 4A APPEAL – (1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under sub-section (1) of Section 4, may within ninety days from the date of receipt by him of such order appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer.

¶62

(2) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under sub-section (1) of Section 4 may, within ninety days from the date of receipt by him of such order appeal to the District Collector.”

¶63

With respect to the legal position, as submitted by the petitioners’ counsel, based on Sections 3, 4 of the Act 1977, as also the judgments cited above, that on the death of the assignee, the legal heir may be entitled for continuing in possession or for restoration of the possession, in case of dispossession or in case of breach or violation of the conditions of assignment for the first time, for the applicability thereof i.e., in the present case, if the petitioners are so entitled or not, the basic facts are to be determined first, which as stated above cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction.

¶64

RNT, J WP No.2230 of 2013

¶65

¶66

The petitioners have already approached respondent No.2 by filing the appeal, raising grievance, may be in the form of appeal or representation. Section 4A of the Act 1977 provides for remedy of appeal and the petitioners having approached the competent authority, having jurisdiction to decide appeal, as it is submitted by both the counsels for petitioners and the learned GP, that the authority to whom the petitioners have approached, is the competent appellate authority, it would be in the interests of justice and in the fitness of the things that the competent authority should consider and decide the petitioners’ grievance, in accordance with law, with due opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

¶67

In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is being disposed of finally, with direction to the 2^nd respondent-the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District, to consider and decide the petitioners’ representation (Annexure No.Ex.P4), treating it as appeal under Section 4A(1) of the Act 1977, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date the copy of this order is produced before the said Authority along with another copy of Ex.P4, in accordance with law with due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.

¶68

No order as to costs.

¶69

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in

¶70

consequence.

¶71

_______________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

¶72

Date: 05.12.2023 Dsr

K.Israil, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Israil, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bachala Venkateswarlu (Died) Vs The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board

Sri. Shrijit Bhowmilk Vs Sub-Registrar, Near Super Market, Visakhapatnam - 1 Town

Dande Annavaram Vs Undamatla Abraham Kumari

Sathi Vijaya Lakshmi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Matta Subrahmanyam Vs Ballari Nagamani

Pedamallu Hemalatha, E.G.Dist. Vs the Govt. of A.P. Irrigation Dept., Hyd and 3 Othrs