Dismissed

Sri. Bobbara Sundara Rao(Died) for Lr 2 v. The Govt. A.P. Rep. By its Secretary, Revenue Department

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Dec 2023WP/3430/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a Second Writ Petition challenging the transfer of assigned land. The Court found the petition devoid of merit and an abuse of process due to unreasonable delay of over 32 years and laches.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs due to the petitioner's financial status.

Sri. Bobbara Sundara Rao(Died) for Lr 2 Vs The… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 3430 OF 2014

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sri. Bobbara Sundara Rao (Died) for LR 2, S/o. Late Venkat Ratnam, aged 63 years, R/o. Rajiv Nagar, Jangareddygudem, West^Godavari District.

¶11

Sri Bobbara Peter Son S/o late Bobbara Sundar Rao, Aged 49 years, R/o. Byannagudem Koyyalagudem Mandal Eluru Dist.

¶12

(Petitioner 2 is brought on record as LR of deceased Petitioner as per CO dt 21/09/2022 in lA 01/22)

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The Govt. A.P. Rep. By its Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

The District Collector, West Godavari District,^Eluru.

¶17

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddygudem,^{W.G.District.}

¶18

The Tahsildar, Jangareddygudem, W.G.District.

¶19

Sri. Parini Dharmaraju, S/o. Gangaraju, aged about 55 years, R/o. Ramachandrapuram, Eluru Road, Jangareddygudem V & M, W.G.District.

¶20

Kora Nageshwar Rao, S/o. Raghavulu, aged about 52 years, R/o. Near KIDS Convent, Jangareddygudem V & M, W.G.District

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order direction more particularly^{oneinthenatureofwrit} of Mandamus declare the action of the Respondents in not cancelling the transfer of assigned lands in favor of 5th & 6th respondents in respect of the land situated in Sy.No.410 an extent of Ac.4.42 Cts at jangareddygudem V & M, West Godavari District as illegal, arbitary and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act 1977 and consequentially direct the Respondents to restore the assigned land covered in RS No.410 an extent of Ac.4.42 Cts situated at Jangareddygudem V & M, West Godavari District in favor of the petitioner.

¶23

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 4225 OF 2014)

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the Respondents to complete the enquiry basing on the complaint given by the petitioner on 19-11-2012 and^{05-01-2013andrestore} the assigned land covered in RS No.410 an extent of Ac.4.42 Cts situated at Jangareddygudem V & M, West Godavari District to the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶25

I.A. NO: 5 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 39285 OF 2014)

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to the Respondent No.4 to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 16.09.2014 and restore the land to the petitioner as per the sec.4 of A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P R K AMERANDRA KUMAR

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6: SRI M R K CHAKRAVARTHY

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

[3328]

¶32

APHC010016762014

¶33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶34

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶35

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶36

PRESENT

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶38

WRIT PETITION NO: 3430/2014

¶39

Between:

¶40

1.SRI. BOBBARA SUNDARA RAO(DIED) FOR LR 2, S/0. LATE VENKAT RATNAM, AGED 63 YEARS, R/0. RAJIV NAGAR, JANGAREDDYGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶41

2.SRI BOBBARA PETER SON S/0 LATE BOBBARA SUNDAR RAO, AGED 49 YEARS, R/0. BYANNAGUDEM KOYYALAGUDEM MANDAL ELURU DIST AS PER CO DT 21/09/2022 IN lA 01/22

¶42

...PETITIONER(S)

¶43

AND

¶44

1.THE GOVT A P REP BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A. P.SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

¶45

¶46

2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ELURU,

¶47

3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JANGAREDDYGUDEM W.G.DISTRICT.

¶48

4.THE TAHSILDAR JANGAREDDYGUDEM W G DISTRICT, -

¶49

5.SRI PARINI DHARMARAJU, S/0. GANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/0. RAMACHANDRAPURAM ELURU ROAD, JANGAREDDYGUDEM V & M, W.G.DISTRICT.

¶50

KORA NAGESHWAR RAO, S/0. RAGHAVULU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/0. NEAR KIDS CONVENT, JANGAREDDYGUDEM V &^M, W.G.DISTRICT

¶51

¶52

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶53

Counsel for the Petitioner(S);

¶54

P R K AMERANDRA KUMAR

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶56

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶57

2.10009/M R K CHAKRAVARTHY

¶58

The Court made the following;

¶59

ORAL ORDER:

¶60

Heard Sri P.R.K.Amarendra Kumar, learned Counsel for^{thePetitioner} and Sri Y.Subba Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Official Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned^{Counselforthe} Respondent Nos.5 & 6.

¶61

Sri Bobbara Sundara Rao expired on 2. The original Writ Petitioner one 29.08.2019. The son of late Sri Bobbara Sundara Rao, one Sri Bobbara Peter Son filed Interlocutory Application bearing l.A.No.1 of 2022^{on20.09.2022for} coming on record as Writ Petitioner in the place of^{hisfather.Videorderdated} 21.09.2022, l.A.No.1 of 2022 was allowed, thereby impleading Sri Bobbara The Peter Son as a legal representative of late Sri Bobbara Sundara Rao. prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under

¶62

It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue order direction more particularly one in the nature^ofwritof MANDAMUS delcare the action of the Respondents in not cancelling the transfer of assigned lands In favor^of5th & 6th respondents in respect of the land situated in Sy.No.410^anextentof Ac. 4.42 Cts at jangareddygudem V & M, West Godavari District as

¶63

¶64

illegal arbitary and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Assigned Land(Prohibition of Transfer) Act 1977 and consequentially^direct the Respondents to restore the assigned land covered^inRSNo.410 an extent of Ac. 4.42 Cts situated at Jangareddygudem V & M, West Godavari District in 'favor of the petitioner and pass^{suchotherorder} or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances^ofthecase."

¶65

Version of the Writ Petitioner:-

¶66

Sri P.R.K.Amarendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Writ Petitioner (late Sri Bobbara Sundara Rao) is a landless poor person; that the father of the Writ Petitioner (late Sri Bobbara Venkat Ratnam - grandfather of the newly impleaded LR) was^{allottedanextentof} Ac.4.42 cents of agricultural land in R.S.No.410 vide^{L.Dis.No.140/79situated} at Jangareddygudem Village and Mandal, West Godavari District; that the subject land was prepared for paddy cultivation; that^on 27.05.2002 the grandfather of the newly impleaded Writ Petitioner i.e., Sri Bobbara Venkat Ratnam died; that taking undue advantage of his death the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 have encroached the assigned land and not allowing^{theWritPetitioner} (late Sri Bobbara Sundara Rao) to cultivate the land.

¶67

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that the Writ Petitioner (late Sri Bobbara Sundara Rao) approached^the District Collector (Respondent No.2) by way of a written complaint dated 19.11.2012 (Ex.PI); that in response to the said complaint, the Respondent No.2 directed the Tahsildar (Respondent No.4) to enquire and take necessary action; the Respondent No.4, vide proceeding bearing Roc.No.957/2012 dated 15.12.2012, issued Notice to the Writ Petitioner (late Sri Bobbara Sundara

¶68

e rj:.

¶69

¶70

Rao) to appear before him along with necessary records on 21.12.2012; that on 21.12.2012, the Writ Petitioner has submitted the entire record; that the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 also appeared during the enquiry and produced registered documents bearing Document No.481/1982 dated 28.04.1982; that as no steps were taken by the Official Respondents, the Writ Petitioner has filed W.P.No.31222 of 2013 seeking a direction to the Official Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to act on the complaint given by the Writ Petitioner dated 19.11.2012; that the Writ Petitioner had withdrawn the said Writ Petition seeking liberty to work out his legal remedies vide order dated 31.10.2013 (Ex.P7); that, though the son of the Writ Petitioner (Sri Bobbara Peter Son - impleaded Petitioner), the Writ Petitioner submitted an application on 05.11.2013 (Ex.P1) seeking information (under Right to Information Act) regarding the transfer of assigned land in Sy.No.410; that in response to the application, the Tahsildar (Respondent No.4) vide proceeding bearing Roc.No.937/2013/(A) dated 17.12.2013 (Ex.P8) had informed the Writ Petitioner that the father of the Writ Petitioner (late Sri Bobbara Venkat Ratnam) has alienated the assigned land in favour of the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 in the year 1982; and, therefore, the Writ Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking action on his complaint dated 19.11.2012.

¶71

Version of the Official Respondents:-

¶72

The Tahsildar of Jangareddygudem Village and Mandal,^WestGodavari District filed the Counter Affidavit on behalf of the Official Respondent Nos.2 to 4 on 10.09.2014. The averments in the Counter Affidavit, as submitted by Sri

¶73

¶74

Y.Subba Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader,^arethatan extent of Ac.4.42 cents in R.S.No.410, classified as AWD Government land, was assigned to one Sri Bobbara Venkat Ratnam during the year 1979 by the then Tahsildar of Polavaram; later, the said land was sold by the assignee (Sri Bobbara Venkat Ratnam, who is the grandfather of the present impleaded Petitioner) during the year 1982 to the Respondent^{Nos.5&6herein} vide Document Nos.481/1982 and 480/192 vide Sale Deeds dated 28.04.1982 for an extent of Ac.2.21 cents for each of the Respondents;^{thatPattadarPass} Books and Title Deeds were also issued in favour of the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 bearing Title Deed Nos.E207335 (Katha No.122) and E207349 (Katha No.127); the said Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds were issued during the year 1995 and since then the land has been in possession and enjoyment of Respondent Nos.5 & 6; that the Writ Petitioner (late^{SriBobbaraSundara} Rao) is the son of the original assignee i.e., (late Sri Bobbara Venkat Ratnam) and that the said Writ Petitioner has made a belated claim by filing the Writ Petition after thirty two years from the date of alienation by way of sale by late Sri Bobbara Venkat Ratnam in favour of the Respondent Nos.5 & 6; that the Form - 1 and Form - 2 Notices were also issued in terms of the statuary provisions to the Writ Petitioner and to Respondent^{Nos.5&6on06.09.2014} and due to non-availability of the purchasers (Respondent Nos.5 & 6) the wife and brother of the Respondents have received the Notices^{on06.09.2014.}

¶75

¶76

Version of the Unofficial Respondent Nos.5 & 6:-

¶77

Unofficial Respondent Nos.5 & 6 have filed a common Counter Affidavit dated on 21.09.2022. Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Unofficial Respondent Nos.5 & 6 would submit that the said Respondents are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject land admeasuring Ac.4.42 cents in Sy.No.410 of Jangareddygudem Village and Mandal, West Godavari District; that the said Respondents have purchased the land by way of two separate Registered Sale Deeds bearing Document Nos.480/1982 and 481/1982 dated 28.04.1982 in the Office of the SubRegistrar, Jangareddygudem from the father of the Writ Petitioner one Sri Bobbara Venkat Ratnam; that after the purchase, the revenue records have also been mutated in favour of the Unofficial Respondents^and Pattadhar Pass Books and Title Deeds were also issued (details are furnished above); that the said Respondents (Respondent Nos.5 & 6) never received any Form - 1 Notice at any time; that upon receipt of Notice dated 15.12.2012 for the first time, the Respondents produced their original Sale Deeds, Pattadhar Pass Books, Title Deeds and Adangals to evidence and^{establishthefactthat} the subject land is no more an assigned land and that it is only a Zeroiti land; that on account of presentation of these documents during the enquiry, the t Tahsildar had directed the Writ Petitioner to produce documentary evidence to show that the subject land is an assigned land within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act; that, whereas, the Writ Petitioner has avoided to produce such document; that the Writ

¶78

¶79

'I-

¶80

Petitioner filed W.P.No.31222 of 2013 against the Official Respondents as well as the Unofficial Respondents, but had withdrawn the same vide order dated 31.10.2013 (Ex.P7) with liberty to pursue his^remedies in accordance with law.

¶81

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Unofficial Respondent^Nos.5& 6 had further submitted that the Writ Petitioner without pursuing his legal remedies had once again filed the instant Writ Petition despite the fact that the Writ Petitioner is fully aware that his late father had alienated the subject land by way of the Registered Sale Deeds which were executed way back on 28.04.1982. It is further submitted that the Unofficial Respondents have filed O.S.No.101 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, seeking permanent injunction against K.Venkat Rao and^{othersthatincludes} the Writ Petitioner (Sri Bobbara Sundara Rao) as well^and that same is pending trial.

¶82

Learned Counsel for the Unofficial Respondents had drawn the attention of this Court to the photo copies of the Sale Deeds dated 28.04.1982, the Pattadhar Pass Books and Title Deeds^{andalsotherevenue} records evidencing the fact that the names of the Unofficial Respondents have been mutated in the revenue records. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the plaint filed by the Unofficial Respondent No.5 seeking permanent injunction wherein several third parties as well as the family members of the Writ Petitioner were impleaded as Defendants. He would^{submitthatthesaid} Suit is pending for trial.

¶83

¶84

¶85

• 9. Learned Counsel for the Unofficial Respondents would urge that the instant Writ Petition is devoid of any merit in as much as the father of the Writ : Petitioner namely late Sri Bobbara Venkat Ratnam had sold this subject land within three years from the date of assignment i.e., on 28.04.1982. Despite the fact that this fact was known to the Writ Petitioner, he did not raise his little finger against this sale by his father either during his father’s life time or immediately after his death (original Assignee died on 27.05.2002). While the father of the Writ Petitioner died on 27.05.2002, for ten years thereafter also, the Writ Petitioner has not raised any objection. The Writ Petitioner cannot take undue advantage of the death of his father in the year 2002 and file a Writ Petition firstly in the year 2012 and also the present Writ Petition. He i would further submit that the sale consideration paid by the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 was enjoyed by the whole family that includes the Writ Petitioner herein who was a major even by the date of sale. He would also submit that the Official Respondents too have consciously allowed the registration to take place on 28.04.1982 itself, by which the State got benefited by the stamp fee which has been paid by the Unofficial Respondents.

¶86

Learned Counsel for the Unofficial Respondents has placed reliance on the following Judgments:

¶87

1 Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior^ - on the proposition that a second Writ Petition should not be entertained if the Writ Petitioner has

¶88

'air 1987 sc 88

¶89

¶90

withdrawn the earlier Writ Petition without seeking permission

¶91

to file a fresh Writ Petition.

¶92

The Joint Collector, Rangareddy District Vs. P.Harinath

¶93

Reddy and Ors^ - on the proposition that if the land^hasbeen assigned without a condition of non-alienability, it^doesnotfall within the definition of assigned land as contemplated^under Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers)^Act 1977.

¶94

Learned Counsel for the Unofficial Respondents would^{alsosubmitthat} the Writ Petitioner herein has not produced the Certificate of Assignment. He would also submit that the very fact that the registration authorities have allowed registration way back on 28.04.1982 itself^would indicate that the registration was allowed because there was no condition of non-alienability in the grant/assignment. He would also submit that the^{WritPetitionerwas} a major even on the date of the sale i.e., on 28.04.1982,^{butdidnotchooseto} challenge the same. It is also submitted that though the original assignee had died on 27.05.2002, the Writ Petitioner did not make any claim until the year 2012 and therefore, the claim made by the Writ Petitioner is barred by delay and laches.

¶95

^2009 (4)ALT1(DB)

¶96

¶97

Discussion:12. From the above facts, this Court notices that the following facts are admitted; Writ Petitioner (late Sri Bobbara Venkat

¶98

a) That the father of the extent of Ac.4.42 cents in Rs.No.410

¶99

Ratnam) was allotted an situated in Jangareddygudem Village and Mandal, West Godavari District bearing L.Dis.No.140/79 in the year 1979;

¶100

Writ Petitioner (grandfather of the impleaded

¶101

b) That the father of the this land by way of Registered Document on

¶102

Petitioner) sold away 28.04.1982 by way of two separate Sale Deeds bearing Document Nos.480/1982 and 481/1982 (Sale Deeds filed along with Counter Affidavit) and by receiving the sale consideration,

¶103

and Title Deeds were issued to the

¶104

c) That Pattadhar Pass Books 1995 for extents of

¶105

Unofficial Respondent Nos.5 & 6 in the year of the Unofficial Respondent Nos.5 & 6 vide

¶106

Ac.2.21 cents for each Title Deed Nos .E207335 (Katha No.122) and E207349 (Katha No.127);

¶107

on the date of the sale

¶108

d) Admittedly the Writ Petitioner was a major as of the subject land i.e., on 28.04.1982;

¶109

e) That the Writ Petitioner did not produce the Assignment Certificate bearing L.Dis.No.140/79 (D-Form Patta) to evidence the fact that the land is either alienable or non-alienable; and

¶110

¶111

f) That the Unofficial Respondent Nos.5 & 6 filed O.S.No.101 of 2016 before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur for injunction, wherein, the Writ Petitioner as well as the family members of the Writ Petitioner were made parties and the same is pending for trial.

¶112

Conclusion:-

¶113

In the above premise, this Court is of the opinion that the present Writ Petition is not only devoid of merit but also an abuse of process. It is; an admitted fact that late Sri Bobbara Venkata Ratnam was assigned the D-form patta in the year 1979. He had sold away the D-form patta of an extent of Ac.4.42 cents in R.S.No.410 situated at Jangareddygudem Village and Mandal, West Godavari. The said Sri Bobbara Venkata Ratnam, within three years of grant of assignment, had sold away an extent^{ofAc.2.21centsvide} Document No.481 of 1982 on 28.04.1982 in favour of Respondent No.6 for a consideration. On the same day i.e., on 28.04.1982, the said Sri Bobbara Venkata Ratnam had sold away the balance extent of^Ac.2.21 cents to the Respondent No.5 vide Document No.480 of 1982 for a consideration. It is giso a matter of record that the Pattadhar Pass Book and Title Deed were issued to the Respondent No.6 vide Katha No. 122, Pattadhar Pass^{BookandTitleDeed} No.3207335. It is also an admitted fact that the Pattadhar Pass Book and Title Deed were issued to the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said lands ever since the date of their purchase.

¶114

¶115

• 14. It is also an admitted fact that the written complaint,^{forthefirsttime,} was given by the son of the original assignee namely^{SriBobbaraSundara} Rao S/o Sri Bobbara Venkata Ratnam (the Writ Petitioner)^on 19.11.2012 (Ex.P.I and P.2) to the District Collector. The original^assigneedied on 27.05.2002. Thereafter, Sri Bobbara Sundara Rao has^{filedW.P.No.31222of} 2013 complaining of inaction on the part of the Official^{RespondentNos.2and} 4. It is also an admitted fact that by Order dated^{31.10.2013, theCounselfor} the Writ Petitioner therein withdrew the Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.31222 of 2013 with liberty to work out the remedies in accordance^{withlaw(Ex.P.7).} 15. While the first complaint dated 19.11.2012 was never^{takentoalogical} end by the Writ Petitioner, the Writ Petitioner through^{hisson(whoispresently} arrayed as Writ Petitioner No.2 after the death of^{hisfather)hassubmittedan} Application under R.T.I to furnish the information on 06.12.2013 and 03.02.2014. The Writ Petitioner has again approached^{thisCourtbyfilingthe} present Writ Petition. While the original assignee^{whowasthebeneficiaryof} the assignment in the year 1979 had sold away the land^{toRespondentNos.5} and 6 way back in the year 1982 (i.e., within three^{yearsoftheassignment),} now the Writ Petitioners, cannot take undue advantage of^{thestatuealoneby} clouding the very conduct of the original assignee^{aswellashislegalheirs} (including the son of the assignee who is Writ Petitioner).^{Evenonthedateof} sale, the Writ Petitioner No.2 was a major. He had^{neitherobjectednorhad} approached the Authorities for declaring the sale of^landdone in favour of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 as void and contrary to statute^{whilehehadevery}

¶116

¶117

right to do so because the grant of land is heritable. Being a family member, there is no doubt that everybody would have enjoyed the fruits of sale t consideration and would have utilized the amounts received in the form of sale consideration. Therefore, today, the Writ Petitioners cannot seek protection only under law after 32 years of sale while the conduct of the original consignee and his son would indicate otherwise.

¶118

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Even though^{thisisafitcase} for awarding Exemplary Costs, having regard to the fact that the Writ Petitioner No.2 is a poor person and a legal representative of the original Writ Petitioner, this Court intends to take a lenient view by not imposing any costs. No order as to costs.

¶119