Disposed

Kanikanti Durga Prasad v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Aug 2023WP/6393/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a stay on the demolition of a weigh bridge built by the petitioner on temple land. The Court held that while the petitioner lacked title and the construction was unauthorized, the respondent must follow due process by issuing a notice and pass orders strictly according to law before demolition.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed not to demolish the weigh bridge/shed without following due process; petitioner to be served notice within 3 weeks to submit explanation.

Kanikanti Durga Prasad Vs The state of Andhra… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

\ -

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY .THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

"O’

■A

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 6393 OF 2023

¶10

Between:

¶11

Kanikanti Durga Prasad, S/o Venkateswara Rao Hindu aged about 36 years, occu.cultivation R/o Kothapalli village, Bapulapadu mandal Krishna District

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

The state of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its principal secretary Endowments Department At Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh,

¶15

The Commissioner. Endowments Department, Gpllapudi, NTR District.

¶16

3; The Executive Officer, Sri Raghunatha Swamy vaari Devasthanam, Gollapalli, Nuzvid Mandal, Eluru District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring' the action of the 3'^'* respondent in threatening to demolish the weigh bridge and shed of the petitioner existing in the land adm Ac 1-66 cents in RS No. 225/9 of Vempadu Agraharam village, Gollapalli Panchayat as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles, of natural justice and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3^*^ respondent not to demolish the above said weigh bridge and the shed in the interest of justice.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

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 may be pleased to direct the respondent No: 3 not to demolish the weigh bridge and the shed of the petitioner existing in the land adm Ac 1-66 cents covered by RS No; 225/9 of Vempadu Agraharam village, GoHapalli panchayat in the interest cf justice pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. CH B R P SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents 1 &2: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent 3: Smt. P. RADHIKA, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.6393 OF 2023

¶24

Between: *

¶25

Kanikanti Durga Prasad S/o Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o Kothapalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District.

¶26

... Petitioner

¶27

Versus

¶28

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department at Secretariat, Velagapudi,

¶29

Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh and two others.

¶30

... Respondents

¶31

.. Counsel for the petitioner : Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 85 2 :

¶32

: Sri Ch.B.R.P.Sekhar

¶33

Government Pleader for Endowments

¶34

Counsel for respondent No.3

¶35

: Smt. P.Radhika, Standing Counsel

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶38

"... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action of 3*^'* respondent in threatening to demolish the weigh bridge and shed of the petitioner existing in the land admeasuring Ac. 1.66 cents in R.S.No.225/9 of Vempadu Agraharam Village, Gollapalli Panchayat as illegal, arbitrary and

¶39

Page 2 of 11

¶40

SRS, J W.P.No.6393 of 2023

¶41

violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3”* respondent not to demolish the above said weight bridge and the shed in tiie interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case...”.

¶42

(a) .. -The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of agricultural land of an extent of Ac. 1.66 cents in RS.No.225/9 (old Sy.No.35) of Vempadu Agraharam Village, Gollapalli Panchayat, Nuzvid Mandal, Eluru District. Petitioner purchased the same by way of possessory agreement of sale dated 21.03.2022, executed by one Yanamadala Sambasiva Rao. The total extent of land in S.No.225/9 (old S.No.35) is Ac.2539-00 cents. Number of farmers are in possession of the land. Disputes arose in between some farmers and respondent No.3 Temple. Matter went upto the Apex Court wherein a compromise order was passed in Civil Appeal No.2541/1972 wherein it was observed that ryots in possession of land should pay annual rents to the temple. About five years back, officials of Endowment Department and Revenue Department conducted joint survey and recorded the names of i farmers in possession of the lands. Land is prohibited from registration. However, the Executive Officer of the 3"^ respondent Temple is recognizing sales under unregistered agreements and collecting rents from them.

¶43

Page 3 of 11

¶44

SRS, J W.P.No.6393 of 2023

¶45

(b) Petitioner’s vendor is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.24-06 cents, out of Ac.2539-00 cents. Out of Ac.24-06 cents, Ac. 14-80 cents is situated in R.S.No.226/l'P and Ac.9-26 cents is in R.S.No.225/9 of Vempagu Agraharam. Name of vendor is mutated in temple records and he has been paying rents. He sold Ac. 1-66 cents in R.S.No.225/9, out of Ac.9-26 cents under agreement of sale dated 21.03.2022.

¶46

(c) Farmers of Vempadu Agraharam Village and the surrounding villages are cultivating palm oil gardens in the lands of an extent of Ac.2000-00 cents and transporting the palm' oil fruit to, the Ruchi Soya Palm oil factory situated in Ampapuram. Farmers of neighbouring villages have represented the palm oil factory to establish the weigh bridge for the purpose of weighing, the palm oil fruit and for collection of fruit from their fields. For which, the palm oil factory has identified the land of petitioner situated in RS.No.225/9 of Vempadu Agraharam Village to establish the weigh bridge, as it is centrally located place for collection. Accordingly,, petitioner established, the weigh bridge and shed for palm oil fruit in the month of June 2022, after duly obtaining permission from the Weights and Measurements Department and when the petitioner approached I -the Gram Panchayat for permission, he was informed that no • V

¶47

Page 4 of 11

¶48

SRSJ yV.P.No.6393 of 2023

¶49

?,-’

¶50

permission is required from Gram Panchayat for agricultural land. On 13.03.2023, respondent No.3 along with his staff came to the subject land and threatened the petitioner to demolish the weigh bridge and the shed existing in an extent of Ac. 1.66 cents in RS.No.'225/9 (old Sy.No.35) of Vempadu Agraharam Village, Gollapalli Panchayat. Hence, the writ petition.

¶51

(a) Respondent No.3 filed the counter affidavit, wherein. it was contended, inter-alia, that respondent No.3-Temple is classified under Section 6(a) of Act 30 of 1987 and is under the administrative control of the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajamahendravaram. Temple is being managed by the Executive Officer. Respondent No.3-Temple is having an extent of Ac.3409.00 cents. Respondent No.3-Temple conducted auction for lease hold rights for an extent of Ac.52.77 cents. Regarding the remaining extent of Ac.3356.23 cents, it was surveyed in the year 2003. As per the survey report, an extent of Ac.2789.62 cents was in illegal possession of 1,038 enjoyers. The remaining extent of Ac.566.61 cents consists of roads, paths, donkas, quarries, Ramileru and N.S.Canal etc.

¶52

(b) The Assistant Settlement Officer declared Vempadu Agraharam Village in Nuzivid Mandal as Inam Village and the

■' •

Page 5 of 11

■A

SRS, J W.P.No.6393 of 2023

¶57

temple as: Inamdar. Smt. Gadde Sasirekhamma, Sri Cherukuri Venkata Subba Rao and Sri Potluri Lakshmana Swamy obtained permanent pattas and leases in respect of Ac. 1002.50 cents from the then Hereditary Trustee and have filed Appeal Nd.237 of 1950 before the Appellate Tribunal, Vijayanagaram. The appeal was transferred to the Appellate Tribunal, Nuzvid and it was renumbered as A.S.No.289 of 1953. The Tribunal upheld the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer and dismissed the appeal on 07.08.1953. One Potluri Lakshmana Swamy filed. L.P.A.No.263 of 1968 and the same was allowed on 19.08.T97T, by holding that Vempadu is an Estate Village. Respondent No.3 filed an appeal’before the HonTale Apex Court in'C.A.No.2541 of 1972. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 18.04.1990, directed the ryots who were cultivating the lands belonged to the Temple to pay one quintal of ground nut or its equivalent price as fixed by the Agricultural Price Commission of Government of India per acre per year before 31®^ December of every calendar year. However, most of the ryots failed to pay the maktha. Sale transaction took place behind the back of the temple and those are not binding on the temple.

¶58

¶59

from the Commissioner or competent authority has constructed

¶60

Page 6 of 11

¶61

SRS, J W.P.No.6393 of 2023

¶62

the weigh bridge and shed in the land admeasuring Ac. 1.66 cents in R.S.No.225/9 and he has been continuing and doing his business in the said premises. Petitioner has no right or' interest or title over the subject property. Hence, his possession is unauthorized possession and he is an encroacher as defined under Section 83 of the Act 30 of 1987. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶63

Heard Smt.K.Jhansi Lakshmi, learned counsel representing Sri Ch.B.R.P.Sekhar, learned counsel for the ! petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.l & 2 and Smt.P.Radhika, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶64

As seen from the record, petitioner is asserting title to the property of an extent of Ac. 1.66 cents by virtue of possessory agreement of sale said to haye been executed by one Yanamadala Sambasiva Rao, son of Yanamadala Pichaiah. Xerox copy of the agreement dated 21.03.2022, filed along with the writ affidavit, would disclose that the agreement was executed on Rs. 100/- non judicial stamp. As per Explanation I, Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 an

¶65

Page 7 of 11

¶66

SRS, J W.P.No.6393 of 2023

¶67

agreement to sell, follbwed by or evidencing delivery of possession- of property agreed to be sold, shall be chargeable as a sale. The document executed on Rs. 100/.- non judicial stamp is not duly stamped and hence it cannot be looked into for any purpose even for collateral purpose.

¶68

According to the petitioner, lands belonged to 3rd respondent. Petitioner claims possession by virtue of possessory agreement said to have been executed by one Yanamadala Sambasiva Rao. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said Yanamadala Sambasiva Rao is the owner of the lands. The vendor of petitioner claimed title by virtue of agreement dated 06.10.2011 and the sale consideration under the agreement is Rs.28,22,000/-. It is settled principle of law that a person cannot transfer better title than what he has ‘nemo dot quad non habit.

¶69

The prayer sought for by the petitioner is to direct the respondent No.3 not to demolish the subject weigh bridge and. shed of the petitioner. Petitioner is aware that his vendor had no legal right over the land and in fact, the land belonged to the Sri Ranganadha Swamy, Gollapalli, Nuzvid Mand'al. Petitioner could have secured permission from the competent authority

*4 • *

Page 8 of 11

I 1

SRS, J W.P.No.6393 of 2023

¶75

before changing the nature of the land. Without permission from competent authority petitioner, seems constructed wight bridge and is carrying on business. The act of the petitioner in constructing weigh bridge in the land belonged to deity is illegal and arbitrary.

¶76

Petitioner should plead and prove infringement of legal or I constitutional right to invoke the jurisdiction under Art 226 of ' the Constitution of India and also corresponding legal obligation i on the part of the respondent. However, petitioner failed to satisfy the court qua infringement of legal right. The possessory » j agreement of sale relied upon by the petitioner cannot be looked J j into even for collateral purpose, however petitioner is claiming ' title to the property by virtue of the said document.

¶77

This court while exercising the powers under Art 226 of j the Constitution of India normally will not decide the title of the respective parties. It requires evidence and adjudication, by ( competent civil court. In fact, in the counter affidavit filed on J behalf of respondent No.3, the petitioner’s right and title over the * property is disputed.

¶78

¶79

However, in the counter affidavit since it was admitted by I the Executive Officer of respondent regarding construction of

¶80

¶81

Page 9 of 11

¶82

SRS, J W.P.No.6393 of 2023

¶83

¶84

z f

¶85

weight bridge, indeed weigh bridge was constructed without permission of the competent authority, the Writ Petition needs to be disposed of with certain directions . This court makes it clear that possession of the petitioner over the schedule property shall riot- give any right or title to the property in favour of petitioner. However,^ even person in illegal occupation and encroacher should be evicted by following procedure known to the law.

¶86

Iri view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent not to demolish the weight bridge and shed constructed in R.S.No.225/9 of an extent of Ac. 1-66 cents without following due process. respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner within a period of three (03) weeks from today. On receipt of such notice, petitioner shall submit explanation. After considering the explanation, 3«*- respondent or the competent authority shall pass orders, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) weeks and communicate copy of the order to the petitioner.

¶87

12.. Petitioner shall not make any further constructions in Ac. 1-66 cents. This order does not preclude the respondent

¶88

¶89

Page 10 of 11

¶90

SRS, J W.P.No.6393of2023

¶91

from initiating steps as per Act 30 of 1987 and the Rules made

¶92

thereunder.

¶93

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶94

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

¶95

stand dismissed.

¶96

<br>

¶97

Sd/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶98

¶99

//TRUE COPY//

¶100

SECTION OFFICER
To, ■ ’ !

¶101

The Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, State of Andhra Pradesh,
At Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Gollapudi, NTR District.
3. The Executive Officer, Sri Raghunatha Swamy vaari Devasthanam, Gollapalli,
Nuzvid Mandal, Eluru District;
4. One CC to Sri. Ch B R P Sekhar Advocate [OPUC]
5. TwoCCsto GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
6. One CC to Smt. P. Radhika, SC for Endowments [OPUC]
7. Two CD Copies
Sdkr I

I .

)

Sdkr

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/08/2023

ORDER

WP.No.6393 of2023

¶111

SS3
’ 3

¶112

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Kanikanti Durga Prasad v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanikanti Durga Prasad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunamneni Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Fayaaz Ahmed Vs the State of a P

Syed Fayaaz Ahmed Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Palepogu Israyelu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Karteek Mineral Industries, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T Ranganayakamma Vs the State of Ap