Dismissed

Nagisetti Kondanda Ramaiah v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Dec 2023WP/27683/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed two writ petitions filed by the same petitioner. The Court held that since the owner rights dispute involves serious allegations of document fabrication and a pre-existing civil dispute, the Revenue authorities were not bound to pass positive orders affecting title. The High Court concluded such matters are misconceived and should be adjudicated in Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions are dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to agitate his right before the appropriate forum.

Nagisetti Kondanda Ramaiah Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶2

WRIT PETITION NOs.31255 & 27683 OF 2023

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Since the petitioner and subject property in both the writ petitions are the same, both the writ petitions are being heard together and disposed of by the common order.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that, he got the subject property through WILL executed by his father in the year 1972 and some of the wrong doers in collusion with officials respondents created some documents and laid lay out in part of the petitioner’s land for which he filed W.P.No.27683/2023 wherein this Court has issued notices to the respondents. Further, when some wrong doers by threatening the petitioner tried to alienate the petitioner’s properties and in order to protect the lives of the petitioner and his family members, the petitioner constrained to filed writ petition vide W.P.No.28407/2023 wherein this Court has disposed of the same directing the police to protect the petitioner and his family along with properties from the wrong doers and also given liberty to approach appropriate Criminal Court.

¶6

It is further case that, without verifying the revenue records, nature of land and without issuing any notice to the petitioner, basing on the created and fake documents, the 3^rd respondents issued proceedings

¶7

¶8

dated 06.05.2023 confirming the orders of the 4^th respondent dated 09.08.2018. Questioning the same, W.P.No.31255/2023 is filed.

¶9

Heard Sri T.N.M.Ranga Rao and Sri G.V.Gangadhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Posani Venkateswarulu, learned Senior counsel representing 11^th respondent (in W.P.No.31255/2023), Sri Kommasani Srinivasula Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 6 & 8 (in W.P.No.27683/2023) and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration contended that, the petitioner got the subject property through will executed by his father and eversince he is in possession of the same. He further submitted that, in order to grab the subject property and to claim the right and title over the subject property, the unofficial respondents, created and fabricated documents, filed an application before the RDO requesting him to mutate their names and for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deed. He further submitted that, one Smt. M. Kowsalya, W/o Veera Raju, filed an appeal before the RDO questioning the issuance of the pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the respondents but the RDO knowing pretty well that the petitioner has right and interest over the property, passed orders dated 09.08.2018 without issuing any notice in the appeal filed by the said individual. Aggrieved thereby, Smt. M.Kowsalya preferred revision before the Joint Collector and the same was dismissed confirming the orders of the RDO dated 06.05.2023. Even the Joint Collector did not

¶11

¶12

issue any notice to the petitioner. Impugning the said orders, W.P.No.31255/2023 is filed. Further, the very same petitioner also got filed another W.P.No.27683/2023 questioning the action of the official respondents in creating documents in collusion with the unofficial respondents and allowing the unofficial respondents to form a lay out in the land belonging to the petitioner. Accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner.

¶13

On the other hand, Sri Posani Venkateswarulu, learned Senior counsel on counter contended that, for the first time, the petitioner has come up with such a plea that he is claiming right over the subject property through will only to harass the respondents. In fact, the petitioner has no right and title over the subject property. Even otherwise if the petitioner has any intention to claim right and title basing on the will, he has to approach competent Civil Court but he cannot file writ petition one after the other. He further contended that, by the date of filing of W.P.No.27863/2023, the order impugned in W.P.No.31255/2023

¶14

is very much available but he did not chose to question the same. Further, neither the RDO nor the Joint Collector has passed any positive orders affecting the rights of the petitioner and the RDO has directed the appellants before him to approach Civil Court in order to adjudicate their rights. And also, the prayer in one of the writ petition (W.P.No.31255/2023) is vague and filed without there being any cause of

¶15

¶16

action. As such, both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.

¶17

Similarly, Sri Kommasani Srinivasula Reddy, learned counsel for respondents (in W.P.No.27683/2023) on counter submitted that, as per land conversion certificate issued by the RDO and other documents, 6^th respondent has processed for sanctioning the tentative layout plan, as such there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶18

Perused the record.

¶19

A perusal of the material would indicate that the petitioner is claiming the right and title over the subject property by way of will said to have been executed by his father. The serious allegations raised before this court are that unofficial respondents in collusion with official respondents created certain documents to claim right and title over the subject property. An appeal seems to have been filed by one Smt.Kowsalya before the RDO questioning the mutation and issuance of pattadar passbook in favour of the respondents but the RDO after noticing that there is serious civil dispute between the parties, relegated the appellants before him to approach competent civil court. Assailing the said order, Smt.Kowsalya preferred revision before the Joint Collector wherein the same got dismissed confirming the orders of the RDO.

¶20

¶21

No doubt, when the revenue authorites entertain mutation application, they have to issue notices to all the individuals who are interested with the subject properties. In the present case, no positive direction has been given either by RDO or by Joint Collector affecting the rights of the petitioner and in the said circumstances questioning the impugned proceedings does not arise. Further no reasons are coming forward as to why the petitioner has not questioned the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deed in favour of the respondents. If at all petitioner has any grievance with regard to title over the subject property, utmost he can approach competent civil court and claim for his rights instead of fighting before the revenue authorities for mutation or any other purpose. Further there are serious allegations with regard to fabrication and creation of documents which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Article 226. Hence, the writ petitions are misconceived and devoid of merits and liable to the dismissed.

¶22

Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed . However, the petitioner is at liberty to agitate his right before appropriate forum.

¶23

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶24

________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶25

28.12.2023, BRS Note:C.C two days

Nagisetti Kondanda Ramaiah v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagisetti Kondanda Ramaiah 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

N Rajendra Prasad Vs the State of Ap

Surabi Venkateswarlu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B v Subbareddy Vs Praveen Prakash,I.a.S

Picchala Venkata Narayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bayaneni Venkata Narayana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Polagani Shankar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh