Allowed

Kaduru Venkatamunaiah, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Feb 2024WP/28736/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the failure to mutate petitioners' names in revenue records for land granted patta status in 1965. The High Court disposed of the petition directing the District Collector to decide the pending application within six weeks by way of a reasoned order after affording a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the application dated 13.08.2012 within six weeks by a reasoned order after affording hearing.

Kaduru Venkatamunaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

<br>

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 28736 OF 2014

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kaduru Venkatamunaiah, (Died) per LRs S/o. K. Ramaiah, aged 93 years, Occupation: Cultivation.

¶10

Kaduru Ramaiah, S/o. K. Dharmaiah, aged about 64 years. Occupation: Cultivation.

¶11

Kaduru Sreenivasulu, S/o. K. Gopalaiah, aged about 48 years. Occupation: Cultivation.

¶12

Vemu Kodandaramaiah, S/o. V. Govindaiah, aged about 51 years. Occupation: Cultivation.

¶13

Vemu Munemma, W/o. V. Achutaiah, aged about 60 years. Occupation: Cultivation.

¶14

Vemu Ramaiah, S/o. V. Raghavulu, aged about 75 years. Occupation: Cultivation.

¶15

Vemu Govinda Rajulu, S/o. V. Veeraswamy, aged about 44 years. Occupation: Cultivation.

¶16

Pulisetty Subharathna, W/o. P. Giddaiah, aged about 55 years. Occupation: Cooli. (All are residents of Basavaiahpalem Village, Thottambedu Mandal, Chittoor District.)

¶17

K. Mohan Raju S/o. late Venkatamunaiah, Basavaiahpalem Village, Thottambedu Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶18

lO.K.Udayakumar S/o. late Venkatamunaiah, Basavaiahpelm Village, Thottembedu Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶19

K. Munemma W/o. late Venkatamunaiah, Basavaiahpalem Village Thottembedu Mandal, Chittoor District. (Petitioners 9to11 are brought on record as Lrs of deceased 1®* petitioner as per C.O. dt.10-12-18 in I.A. 1/15 (WPMP 35397 of 15) ...PETITIONERS

¶20

AND

¶21

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings at Hyderabad.

¶22

The District Collector, Chittoor,Chittoor District.

¶23

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor^District.

¶24

The Tahsildar, Thottambedu Mandal Thottambedu, Chittoor District.

¶25

The Director of Settlements, Survey & Land Records, Board of Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad.

¶26

...RESPONDENTS 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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents-1 to 4 herein in not mutating the names of the petitioners in respect^{ofthelandtoanextentof} Ac.2-20 cents in Sy.No.236/1 situated in Peddakannali Revenue Village, Thottambedu Mandal, Chittoor District, which is midst of the patta lands of the petitioners herein and in respect of which Ryotwari Patta was granted by the 5th respondent vide order dated 13-08-1965 in R.P.No.243/65 inspite of the representation of the petitioners dated 13-08-2012, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents herein to mutate the names of the petitioners in revenue records in respect of the said land forthwith and pass such other^{orfurtherordersasare} necessary.

¶27

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014fWPMP. NO: 35970 OF 2014)

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents-1 to 4 herein to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioners dated 13-08-2012 for implementation of the Ryotwari Patta vide order dated 13-08-1965 in R.P.No.243/65 of the 5th respondent granted in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.2-20 cents in Sy.No.236/1 situated in Peddakannali Revenue Village, Thottambedu Mandal, Chittoor District, immediately, pending disposal of^{themainWritPetition.}

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI P. RAMABHOOPAL REDDY

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.28736 of 2014

¶34

JUDGMENT; -

¶35

Heard Sri P. Rama Bhoopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

¶36

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed inter alia for direction in particular in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to the respondents to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records in respect of land to an extent of^Ac.No.2-20 cents in Sy.No.236/1 situated in Peddakannali Revenue Village, Thottambedu Mandal, Chittoor District, said to be in^themidst of the patta lands of the petitioners and in respect of which Ryotwari Patta was granted by the order of the respondent^No.5 on 13.08.1965 in R.P.No.243/65.

¶37

The facts of the case are that an enquiry under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (in short, the Act 1948) was initiated on the petition of the petitioners. In such enquiry, the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer^No.l, Chittor (in short, the A.A.S.O) rejected the claim of the petitioners under Section 11(a) in respect of Sy.No.236/1, on

¶38

¶39

the ground that “land ISi Poramboke on ground and not Ryotwari in nature. There was no proof that it was the private Kunta of the petitioners. The order rejecting the claim was passed on 29.06.1964. The said order was confirmed in revision by the Settlement Officer, Nellore in R.P.N0.176/64/CTR, dated 27.05.1965. The petitioners’revision was rejected. However, the petitioners’ revision filed before the Board of Revenue in R.P.No.243/65 was allowed by the Director of Settlement on 13.08.1965. It was held that with reference to the documents produced by the petitioners, the petitioners were eligible for grant of patta in respect of the land in question. The Director of Settlement also recorded that the Tahsildar submitted the report that the land was being used exclusively by the petitioners and it was situated in the midst of their patta land. The documents produced by the petitioners appeared to be very old. The petitioners were cultivating the land. The said order dated 13.08.1965 attained finality as it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the same was not challenged by the present respondents. 4. After the order of the Director of Settlement , vide the endorsement D.Dis. 11437/67, dated 21.12.1967, the petitioners were informed that the orders of the Director of Settlement would be implemented in the accounts as and when

¶40

¶41

¶42

‘errata’ list was received from the Assistant Settlement Officer. The same was not done. Consequently, the petitioners filed application/representation dated 13.08.2012 to the District Collector, Chittor District, Chittor, the respondent No.2 for mutation of the petitioners’ name in the revenue records in respect of the land in question pursuant to the order^ofthe Director of Settlement. On such application, the report was called from the Tahsildar who submitted the same on 15.10.2012 (Ex.P6) to the District Collector, inter alia submitting that he had inspected the land along with^Mandal Surveyor and Mandal Revenue Inspector and there was no kunta on land. The land was under possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and was in the midst of the petitioners’ patta land. The report was submitted for further necessary instructions/ action.

¶43

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners’ application is still pending and the order of the Director of Settlement has yet not been implemented in the revenue records. Such an inaction is not justified and consequently, for direction to the respondents,^the present writ petition has been filed.

¶44

Learned Government Pleader does not dispute the aforesaid factual position but placing reliance in^Para3ofthe

¶45

¶46

counter affidavit of the respondents submits that, the web land adangal revealed that the land measuring Acs.2-20 in Sy.No.236/1 was registered as Kunta (water body) as Government land and as such being vested with the Government free from all encumbrances, it cannot be recorded in petitioners’ name.

¶47

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue further submits that even pursuant to the order of the Director of Settlement, the petitioners would have to approach the Settlement Officer for grant of Ryotwari Patta for the subject land, but the petitioners never approached the Settlement Officer after the order of the Director of Settlement dated 13.08.1965.

¶48

Learned Government Pleader placed reliance in the case of Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others, to contend that with respect to the kunta land (water body) order could not be passed in favour of the private person the petitioner.

¶49

In Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the material resources which include lakes, are held by the State as a “trustee” of the public. and can be disposed of only in a manner that is consistent with the nature of such a trust. It was further observed that the

¶50

¶51

¶52

. responsibility of the state to protect the environment^isnowa well-accepted notion in all countries. There is a responsibility bestowed upon the Government to protect and preserve the tanks, which are an important part of the environment^ofthe area.

¶53

In Hinch Lai Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi and others,

¶54

the HonT)le Apex Court held that the material resources^ofthe community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain^etc.are nature’s bounty. They need to be protected for a proper^and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under^Article21of the Constitution.

¶55

Para No. 13 of the Hinch Lai Tiwari (supra) reads as under:-

¶56

“13. It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature's bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Government, including the Revenue Authorities i.e. Respondents 11 to 13, having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, on one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment for the benefit of the public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites.”

¶57

¶58

¶59

On consideration of the aforesaid faets and the submissions advanced, it transpires that the order of the Director of Settlement has set aside the orders of the Settlement Officer, rejecting the claim of the petitioners that the land is poramboke on ground and not Ryotwari in nature. As per the report of the Tahsildar in the order of the Director of Settlement, the land was being used exclusively by the petitioners^and was situated in the midst of their patta land. The report^submitted by the Tahsildar dated 15.10.2012 mentioned that there was no kunta on ground. The land is under possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and the subject land is in the midst of the petitioners’ patta land.

¶60

Since the matter is still pending before the District Collector for mutation on the petitioners’ representation/application and the report has already been submitted to the Collector, without entering into the rival disputed contentions on fact, at this stage, it is considered appropriate that this Writ Petition be disposed of finally with direction to the District Collector, Chittor District, Chittor, the respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders in accordance with ' law on due consideration of the material before it/relevant record, on the petitioners’ application dated 13.08.2012, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶61

¶62

¶63

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of finally, without observing anything as regards the nature of the subject land, with direction to respondent No.2, District Collector, Chittor District, to consider and decide the petitioners’ application dated 13.08.2012 in accordance with law,^withdue opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by reasoned and speaking order, within a period of six (06) weeks from^thedate a copy of this order is produced before the respondent^No.2.

¶64

While considering the matter, the District Collector shall also keep in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hinch Lai Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi an.d others^ and Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2 depending upon the nature of the^land.

¶65

The writ petition is disposed of finally in the aforesaid terms. 17. No order as to costs.

¶66

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

¶67

' (2001) 6 see 496 ^ (2006) 3 see 549

¶68

//TRUE COPY 11

¶69

Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SEi N OFFieER

¶70

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government^ofAndhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi,^Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor^District. 4. The Tahsildar, Thottambedu Mandal Thottambedu, Chittoor^District. 5. The Director of Settlements, Survey & Land Records,^{BoardofRevenue} Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada. 6. One CC to Sri P. Ramabhoopal Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra^{Pradesh.[OUT]} 8. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr gl

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.28736 of 2014

ANO^^
X
; o 2 8 MAR 2024 m
^V Current Section ^

¶77