Allowed

B. Mallikarjuna Rao, Visakhapatnam, and Anr. v. the State of a.P.,Revenue,Guntur Dist.,and 4 Otrs.

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2024WA/694/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants challenging a notice issued to approach revenue authorities to file an appeal against their ryotwari pattas. Court held the appeal was barred by limitation under Section 7(2) of the Inams Act.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and also setting aside the Appeal before the 4th respondent along with the impugned notice bearing Rc.No.11026/2016/C, dated 14-10-2016.

B. Mallikarjuna Rao, Visakhapatnam, and Anr. Vs the… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT j c>, HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAOV

¶4

AND

¶5

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 694 OF 2017

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against^the order dated 27-02-2017 in W.P. No. 6644 of 2017 on the file of the High Court. Between:

¶8

B. Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. Late Dr. B. Perraju, Age;74 years, Occ: Retd., Professor, Andhra University R/o. Door No.31-22-9, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam.

¶9

Smt. Dr. M.Ratnamala, D/o.Late Dr. B. Sarabhalingam, W/o. Dr. M.Kotes\A/ara Rao, Occ; Private Medical Practitioner (Gynaecologist), R/o. Door No.31-33-44,Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam. ...PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/WRIT PETITIONERS AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur^District.

¶11

The Chief Commissioner of Land Acquisition, (COLA), Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh

¶12

The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam Division, Visakhapatnam District.

¶14

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶16

¶17

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WAMP. NO: 1371 OF 2017)

¶18

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 suspend the order dated 27.02.2017 passed in WP.No.6644 of 2017 by the Learned single judge, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal.

¶19

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2017(WAMP. NO: 1372 OF 2017)

¶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 to Stay of all further proceedings pursuant to notice vide Rc.No.11026/2016/C, dated 14-10-2016 issued by the 4’^ Respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, pending disposal of this Writ Appeal.

¶21

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI A. S. C. BOSE

¶22

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

APHC010490142017

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3488] p (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶26

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶29

WRIT APPEAL NO: 694/2017

¶30

Between;

¶31

B. Mallikarjuna Rao, Visakhapatnam, & Anr. and Others ...APPELLANT(S)

¶32

AND

¶33

The State Of A P Revenue Guntur Dist 4 Otrs and Others^{...RESPONDENT(S)} Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶34

1.AS 0 BOSE

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

¶36

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶37

The Court made the following Judgment: (perHon'ble^{SnJusticeR.RaghunandanRao)}

¶38

The appellants herein had been granted ryotwari pattas,^undertheA.P. (AA) Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,^{1956(hereinreferred} to as ‘the Act’) by way of an order, dated 13.02.2007. Thereafter, the appellants received a notice, dated 14.10.2016, issued^{bythe4^*^respondent,} calling upon the appellants to answer the Appeal filed^bythe5 respondent. This notice was challenged by the appellants, by way^{ofW.P.No.6644} of 2017, before the erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad^{fortheStateofTelangana}

¶39

and the State of Andhra Pradesh The primary contention of the appellants was that Section 7 (2) of the Act stipulates a limitation of 60 days from the date of order and the Appeal, in which the notice was issued, had been filed after 9 years and as such, the 4 respondent could not have heard the Appeal which is beyond limitation, It was further contended that the 4 respondent does not have power of condonation of delay and accordingly, the Appeal was not maintainable i in any event. The appellants relied upon a judgment of a Hon’ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in the case of Veerappa Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor \

¶40

A learned Single Judge after hearing the appellants and the respondent authorities had held that these i issues can very well be raised before the Appellate Authority and dismissed the Writ Petition leaving it open to the appellants to approach the 4 respondent and the Appellate Authority

¶41

3- Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27.02.2017, the present Writ Appeal has been moved by the appellants.

¶42

Heard Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 5. Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the facts in the judgment cited by him are similar to the present case. He submits that a similar issue of limitation was raised before the learned Single Judge with the contention that the Appeal Proceedings cannot be initiated, after the

¶43

^ 2002 (5) ALD 121 (DB)

¶44

period of 60 days, mentioned in Section 7 (2) of the Act, have lapsed. Ho\A/ever, the learned Single Judge had held that these^{issuescouldberaised} before the Appellate Authority and had relegated the^{petitionersthereintothe} Appellate Authority. The Hon’ble Division Bench, had^{heldthat,inviewofthe} clear bar for entertaining an Appeal under Section^{7(2)oftheAct,thelearned} Single Judge should not have relegated the petitioners^{thereintogobefore} the Appellate Authority and had set aside the entire^proceedings.

¶45

The learned Government Pleader for Revenue would submit^thatthe of instructions received by the learned Government Pleader, at the^stage hearing before the learned Single Judge, set out the^{backgroundinwhichthe} orders, dated 13.02.2007, had been challenged before^theCourt.

¶46

The said instructions, which have now been placed before us, states that the appellants herein had initially been granted^{ryotwaripattasunderthe} However, these ryotwari pattas were subjected to provisions of the Act. further proceedings before the Commissioner of Survey,^{Settlements&Land} Records, Andhra Pradesh, who had initiated suo moto^revision in relation to the grant of ryotwari pattas in the present case as^{wellas34othercases} in that area. The Commissioner, after following due procedure had issued orders dated 26.11.2004, setting aside the ryotwari pattas^{andremandedthe} matter back to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Paravada for conducting a de novo enquiry and to pass appropriate speaking orders. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Paravada, passed orders, dated 13.02.2007,^{confirmingtheearlier} ryotwari pattas granted to the appellants. These matters^{cametolightwhena}

¶47

Land Reforms Case bearing L.C.C. No.256/75-AKP had come up for consideration. The Mandal Revenue Officer, in the aforesaid instructions, states that the Government Pleader (Appeal) had met the Mandal Revenue Officer on 23,06.2016 and had opined that an Appeal should be filed against the order, dated 13.02.2007, under the provisions of the Act as three different Acts required to be considered namely Inams Abolition Act, A.P., 1956, Land Reforms Act, 1973 and the Land Acquistion Act, 1894. The Tahsildar further states that, after examination of the entire issue, an Appeal came to be filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer-Visakhapatnam / 4'^ respondent under Section 7 (2) of the Act. Thereafter, proceedings had^{beeninitiatedandthe} impugned notice, dated 14.10.2016, came to be filed.

¶48

The learned Government Pleader for Revenue on the basis of the above instructions submits that the Appeal was filed within the stipulated 60 days mentioned in Section 7 (2) of the Act.

¶49

These instructions merely state that the Appeal was^{filedontheadvice} of the learned Government Pleader (Appeals) in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. There is no mention as to the actual date of knowledge of the orders passed. In these circumstances, the period of 60 days cannot be calculated from the date on which the learned Government Pleader for Appeals had given his advice to the Mandal Revenue Officer.

¶50

In those circumstances, the ratio of the judgment of^{theHon’bleDivision} Bench of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. reported in 2002 (5) ALD 121 would

¶51

apply and it must be held that the Appeal would not^{bemaintainableandthat} the learned Single Judge should not have relegated the appellants to go before the Appellate Authority.

¶52

Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside^{theorderofthe} learned Single Judge and also setting aside the Appeal before the 4 th respondent (R.D.O.) along with the impugned notice bearing Rc.No.11026/2016/C, dated 14.10.2016. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand

¶53

closed.

¶54

Sd/- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SEGTubfrtlFFICER

To,