Allowed

Sadhu Adinarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Aug 2023WP/3226/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the deletion of his name and inclusion of a third party in the possessory column of land revenue records. The court held that the action was illegal and violative of natural justice due to lack of notice. It directed the authority to record the petitioner's name within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 directed to incorporate petitioner's name in possessory column within four weeks following statutory procedure.

Sadhu Adinarayana Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3226 OF 2018

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sadhu Adinarayana, S/o Late Ramayya, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Cultivation R/oPonnada Village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government.

¶13

Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶14

RevenueDivisional Officer, Srikakulam Division, Srikakulam District.

¶15

Tahsildar, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

J admeasuring Ac. 0.08 cents in Survey No inr. did ® Srikakulam District and S?and ® respondent in possessory column for the petitioners Hilo I without issuing any notice and inviting objections from the petitioner as Sinr^rt'd '■ natural ^usticrand and ot Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 rll « T offends Articles 14. 21 and 300-A of thrname°ofIh^J^ consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to delete ^®®Pondent and include his name in possessory column in Online Web Land Revenue Records for the said land.

¶18

•7,

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶20

espondent and include the petitioners name in possessory column in. Online Web Nn for his said land admeasuring Ac. a08 cents in Survey situated in Ponnada Village, Etcherla Mandat, SrikaRulam District pending disposal of the mam Writ Petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. SRINIVAS AMBATI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: NONE APPEARED

¶24

The Court rnade the following: ORDER

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.3226 OF 2018

¶27

Between:

¶28

Sadhu Adinarayana, S/o. Late Ramayya, Aged 40 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Ponnada Village, Etcherla . Mandal, Srikakulam District.

¶29

... Petitioner

¶30

Versus

¶31

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principed Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and three others.

¶32

... Respondents

¶33

Counsel i for the petitioner Sri Srinivas Ambati Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 GP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4 None appeared

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶36

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶37

“... to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of 3rd respondent thereby deleted the petitioner’s name in ‘possessory column’ in Online Web Land Revenue Records for his agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.08 cents in Survey No. 121/24 situated in Ponnada Village, Etcherla I Mandal, Srikakulam District and included the name of the 4*’* respondent in possessory column for the petitioners said 1

¶38

Page 2 of 8

¶39

SRS.J W.P.No.3226 of 2018

¶40

land without issuing any notice and inviting objections from the petitioner as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of the principles of natural justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights,in Land and Pattadar. Pass Books Act, 1971 and rules framed there under and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution. of India and consequently direct the respondents. 2 and 3 to delete the name of the 4tK respondent arid include his name in ‘possessory column’ in Onlme Web Land Revenue Records for the said land and pass such other or further orders..”

¶41

2. The averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of ancestral property an extent of Ac.0.08 cents in Sy.No.121/24 in Ponnada Village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District. Father of the petitioner continued in possession of the property till his death, Later, petitioner came into' possession^ of the schedule property. Respondent No.3 updated the Record of Rights and mutated the name of petitioner’s father and issued' Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed vide Patta No. 117. After death of the father, petitioner came into possession of the schedule property and respondent No.3 issued Pattadar Passbook .and Title Deed vide Patta No.2064 on 01.09:2010, after following the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and Rules framed there under (for short ‘the Act’). Petitioner’s name was also mutated in the Online Web Land.

¶42

¶43

Page 3 of 8

¶44

SRS, J W.P.No.3226 of 2018

¶45

3. Respondent No.4 fabricated unregistered agreement of sale dated 20.07.2001, said to have been executed by petitioner, his brother and deceased father for an extent of Ac.0.06 cents in Sy.No.121/24 of Ponnada Village. Respondent No.4 filed suit O.S.No.308 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam seeking specific performance. The said suit was dismissed on 28.10.2015. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, respondent No.4 filed A.S.No.81 of 2015 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Srikakulam. Respondent No.4 in collusion with respondent No.3 got his name mutated in die ‘possessory column’ by deleting the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said action, the above writ petition is filed.

¶46

This Court ordered notice to respondent No.4 on 02.08.2018 and Sri K.Venkat Rao, learned counsel filed Vakalat on behalf of respondent No.4. No counter was filed on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶47

¶48

5. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.3. In the counter affidavit, it was contended, inter-alia, that petitioner and respondent No.4 are cousins and there exist civil disputes between them. Suit O.S.No.308 of 2009 was filed by respondent No.4 and the same was dismissed. He filed A.S.No.81 of 2015 I s 'J

•n

Page 4 of 8

•1

SRS,J W.P.No.3226 of 2018

¶53

and the same was pending on the file of the Court of District Civil Judge, Srikakulam. Since the civil litigation is pending,, no action was' initiated. The name of respondent Noi4" has been incorporated in the ‘possessor column’ in the year 2001. Mere entries in the Revenue records do not confer any right. Under sub-section 10 of Section 2 of the Act, the Tahsildar is the ‘Recording Authority’. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the- writ petition.

¶54

6. Heard Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for. respondent Nos.l to 3. None appeared for respondent No.4.

¶55

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the writ affidavit and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue reiterated' the contents'^ as. per the counter affidavit.

¶56

81 Along with the writ petition, petitioner filed Adangal for Fasli No. 1420 dated 24.07.22014. The-name of the petitioner is shown in the: column of pattadar as well as possessor in respect of 4C.0.08 cents in Sy.No. 121-24 of Ponnada Village. Learned

¶57

¶58

Page s of 8

¶59

SRS, J W.P.No.3226 of 2018

¶60

counsel for the petitioner would submit that A.S.No.81 of 2015 filed by respondent No.4 on the file of the District Judge, Srikakulam was dismissed on 24.11.2021. He also would contend that no second appeal was filed to his knowledge. The contention of respondent No.3 that, the name of respondent No.4 is being shown in the column of possessor from the year 2001 onwards, cannot be believed in view of the fact that Adangal for fasli No. 1420 dated 24.07.2014, is reflecting the name of the petitioner in the column of pattadar and possessor.

¶61

In Chinnam Pandurangam Vs. Mandal Revenue

¶62

Officer \ the Full Bench of Composite High Court observed as follows:

¶63

ti.

¶64

¶65

“The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. If an application is made for amendment of the existing entries in the Record of Rights, the person whose name already exists in such record is entitled to contest the proposed amendment. He can do so only if a notice regarding the proposed amendment is given to him by the recording authority. An order passed against a person whose name already exist in the Record of Rights without giving him notice of the proposed amendment and effective opportunity of hearing is liable to be declared nullity on the ground of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem, which, as mentioned above, represent the most important facet of the rules of natural justice. It needs no emphasis that the rules of natural justice are applicable in all judicial and quasi judicial proceedings. The rule of hearing is also

‘ 200716) ALD248

•i-

Page 6 of 8

SRS,J W.P.No.3226 of 2018

¶70

applicable in purely administrative proceedings and actions where any public authority passes an order affecting the rights of any individual. The applicability of the rules of natural justice to purely, administrative actions has been recognized .by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei^, and has been reiterated in various judgments including those of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India^, Maneka Gandhi v. Union o'f India'*, S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan^, Swadeshi Cotton Mills V. Union of India^, and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation'^.”

¶71

The counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 does not indicate regarding the issuance of notice, as mandated, under the Act and the Rules made there under. Apart from that, as noted supra, respondent No.3 contended that since the year 2001, the name of respondent No.4 has been shown in the column of possessor, itself is even without verifying the Adangal/Pahani maintained in its-office.

¶72

Respondent No.4 did not file any counter and there was no representation on his behalf when the matter was called. This Court, in view of the discussion supra, satisfied that, respondent

¶73

-’air 1967 SC 1259 ,. ’air 1970 SC150’ “air 1978 SC 597 ’air 1981 SC 136 ® AIR 1981 SC 818 ’air 1986 SC 180

¶74

¶75

Page 7 of 8

¶76

SRS, J W.P.No.3226of2018

¶77

No.3 without following the procedure recorded the name of respondent No.4 in the column of possessor. The act of the authority in recording the name of the 4* respondent in the column of possessor is not only illegal and arbitrary but also violative of principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Act the Rules made there under.

¶78

¶79

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the column of possessor in respect of Ac.0.08 cents in Sy.No. 121/24 of Ponnada Village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District, by following the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and the Rules under, within a period of four {04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same ’ ’ to petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶80

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶81

stand dismissed.

¶82

SD/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANj^EGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

**'**

SECTOSiOFFICER

’l The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2 RevenueDivisional Officer, Srikakulam Division, Srikakulam District. 3 Tahsildar, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District. 4 One CC to SRI. SRINIVAS AMBATI Advocate [OPUC] 5'. Two CCS to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶87