Allowed

S.B. Padmasri, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Feb 2024WP/34759/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed an endorsement declaring land as government property solely on the ground that the affected parties were not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the order was passed, mandating a fresh proceeding within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 09.11.2009 quashed in part; respondents directed to pass fresh orders after providing opportunity of hearing within two months.

S.B. Padmasri, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

<br>

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 34759 OF 2014

¶8

Between:

¶9

S.B. Padmasri, W/o. K. Viswanadha Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. D.No. 9-5, Saraswathi Nagar, Padmavathipura^m Panchayat, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.

¶10

K. Saraswathamma, W/o. K. R. Krishna Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 74 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. D.No. 9-4, Saraswathi Nagar, Padmavathipura^m Panchayat, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Chittoor, Chittor^District.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, Chittor^District.

¶16

The Tahasildhar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal at Ramachandrapuram Village and Mandal, Chittoor 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the endorsement issued by the Respondent No. 2 through his proceedings vide R.Dis. F3/665/09 dated 09.11.2009 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, high handed and the endorsement was passed without any jurisdiction and without any notice which are against the Constitutional right guaranteed to the petitioners herein under Article 300-A and consequently set aside the^same.

¶19

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2014fWPMP. NO: 43480 OF 20141

¶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 suspend the operation of the endorsement issued by the Respondent No.2 through his proceedings vide R.Dis.F3/665/2009, dated 09.11.2009 by directing the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land belongs to the petitioners herein situated at Survey No. 110/2 of Chuttaguntaramapuram Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Chittoor District

¶21

¶22

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI A. K. KISHORE REDDY

¶24

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.34759 of 2014

¶29

JUDGMENT;-

¶30

Heard Sri A. K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

¶31

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the endorsement issued by the respondent No.2, the Joint Collector-cumSettlement Officer, through his proceedings vide R.Dis.F3/665/09, dated 09.11.2009. The prayer in the writ petition is as under:-

¶32

“It is therefore prayed that this Honble Court may^be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the endorsement issued by the Respondent No.2 through his proceedings vide R.Dis.F3/665/09, dated 09.11.2009 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, high handed and the endorsement was passed without any jurisdiction and without any notice which are against the Constitutional right guaranteed to the petitioners herein under Article 300-A and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon hie Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶33

The petitioners’ case is that the petitioner No.l purchased land to an extent of Acs.0.87 cents in Sy.No.^110/2 and the petitioner No.2 purchased an extent of Ac.^0.30centsin

¶34

¶35

Sy.No. 110/2, situated at Chuttagunta, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Chittor District (in short, subject land) vide separate sale deeds dated 30.04.2009 from their vendor namely Sri D. M. Satyamurthy Naidu. The petitioners’ vendor had purchased the said land through registered sale deed from one Mr. Polakala Raghunatha Reddy. The present respondent Nos. 3 and 4 interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners of the subject land. So, they filed W.P.No.993 of 2010. The said writ petition was allowed on 09.02.2010, directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject land except by initiating the proceedings under the relevant provisions of law. Inspite thereof the respondent Nos.3 and 4 again started causing interference by informing the petitioners about the proceedings No.R.Dis.F3/665/09, dated 09.11.2009 impugned in this petition. By the said proceedings the respondent No.2, the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer set aside the orders issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittor issued vide S.R.No. 132/1 l(a)/65 PTR, dated 24.06.1967 and held that the land as involved in those proceedings including Sy.No. 110, Acs. 11.18, (the part of which the petitioners purchased)^wasthe Government land vested in it for communal purpose and^notfor

any individual and all the transactions relating to^thesaidland were null and void and fabricated.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned proceedings dated 09.11.2009 are in violation^ofthe principles of natural justice, without notice to the petitioners and deserve to be quashed on this ground alone. He^hasalso placed reliance in the judgment of W.P.No.993 of 2010.

¶41

Learned Government Pleader submits that the scheduled land is a government land and nobody was granted Ryotwari patta for the said land. The Settlement Authority^had no jurisdiction to grant the Ryotwari patta for the^landswhich are communal in nature. They vested with the Government^free from all encumbrances under Section 3 (b) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. All the sale transactions therefore, were null and void. He further submits that the petitioners’^caseis that she purchased the land from Sri D. M. Satyamurthy Naidu, and he purchased from Sri Polakala Raghunatha Reddy,^who was issued pattadar passbook. However the names of^neither Sri D. M. Satyamurthy Naidu nor Sri Polakala Raghunadha Reddy was recorded as pattadar in the Revenue Records^andno pattadar passbooks were issued.

¶42

¶43

Learned Government Pleader further submits with respect to W.P.No.993 of 2010, that there was no opportunity^to contest the said writ petition. It is further submitted that in the said writ petition, the same writ petitioner stated that her vendor was Sri P. Naveen Kumar Reddy who was granted Ryotwari patta. The petitioner misrepresented in W.P.No.993 of 2010. He submits that the Special Deputy Collector, GNSS (LA) requested to verify the genuineness of S.R.No. 132/1 l(a)/65 PTR, dated 24.06.1967. The matter was reported and after verifying from the records, the Joint Collector, Chittoor had issued impugned endorsement dated 09.11.2009 declaring^and cancelling the proceedings dated 24.06.1967 as null and void and fraudulent.

¶44

The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits, as per the stand in the counter affidavit that the petitioners’ names were not recorded and therefore the notices could not be issued to them before passing the impugned endorsement. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶45

¶46

¶47

Firstly this Court would refer to the judgment dated

¶48

09.02.2010 in W.P.No.993 of 2010.

¶49

It is considered appropriate to reproduce judgment

¶50

in W.P.No.993 of 2010 as under;-

¶51

“The petitioners state that they have purchased land^to an extent of Acs.1.17 cents in survey No.110/2 situated at Chuttagunta Ramapuram Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Chittoor District, through separate sale deeds dated 30.04.2009 from Sri D.M.Satya Murthy Naidu. The vendor of the petitioners, in turn, purchased the land^on 20.04.2001 from Sri P. Naveen Kumar Reddy. It is stated that Naveen Kumar Reddy was granted lyotwari patta under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short) by the Settlement Officer, Chittoor, vide proceedings dated 24.06.1967. The petitioners state^that though they derived valid title to the property, the respondents are trying to interfere with their possession and pray for a writ of Mandamus.

¶52

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶53

The petitioners traced the title to the land in question from the year 1967. A reference is made to an order passed by the Settlement Officer under the Act. If what is stated by the petitioners is true, it emerges^that they have derived a valid and perfect title. Assuming^that the Government has any claim or interest in the property, they have to initiate proceedings under the relevant provisions of law. The patta issued to the vendor's^vendor of the petitioners was not challenged under the provisions of the Act. As long as the patta and subsequent proceedings stand, the respondents are not justified in interfering with the rights of the petitioners. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjo3nment of the petitioners over the^land in question except by initiating the proceedings under^the relevant provisions of law. There shall be no order^as to costs.”

¶54

¶55

¶56

A perusal of the judgment dated 09.02.2010, in W.P.No.993of 2010 makes it evident that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had taken a view that, even if the Government had any claim/interest in the property in question, they^had to initiate proceedings under the relevant provisions of law. It was further observed in that judgment that the patta issued^tothe vendor’s vendor of the petitioners was not challenged^underthe provisisons of the relevant Act and so long as the patta continued and the proceedings stood, the petitioners’ possession could not be interfered with.

¶57

12.. However, I find that and is also admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners during arguments that by the time W.P.No.993 of 2010 was decided and the order dated 09.02.2010 was passed, the impugned endorsement had already been passed and thereby the proceedings dated 24.06.1967 of allotment of patta, had already been^declarednull and void and fraudulent. The said endorsement appears^notto have been brought to the notice of the writ Court in previous W.P.No.993 of 2010, may be for the reason as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned endorsement was without notice and knowledge of the petitioners and may be as submitted by the learned^Government

¶58

¶59

Pleader that there was no opportunity of contest i.e.^ofcounter affidavit.

¶60

It is further noticed that in W.P.No.993 of 2010 the case of the present petitioners was that they purchased^theland in question from Sri D. M. Satyamurthy Naidu. The vendor^of the petitioners in turn purchased the land on 20.04.2001^from Sri P. Naveen Kumar Reddy. It was their further case that Naveen Kumar Reddy was granted Ryotwari Patta under^Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion^into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (in short, the Act 1948) by Settlement Officer, Chittoor vide proceedings dated 24.06.1967. Whereas, in the present W.P.No.34759 of 2014 the petitioners’^case is that their vendor Sr. D. M. Satyamurthy Naidu had purchased from one Mr. Polakala Raghunatha Reddy.

¶61

Without entering into disputed questions of fact, what I find is that the petitioners’ sale deeds are dated 30.04.2009. The same sale deeds were also the basis of W.P.No.993 of 2010. The impugned endorsement is dated 09.11.2009. The said endorsement is adverse to the petitioners. The petitioners’ right in the land in question, based^onthesale deeds is adversely affected. The impugned endorsement^hascivil consequences. Admittedly, the petitioners were not provided any opportunity of hearing, may be because their names were

¶62

¶63

¶64

not recorded pursuant to the sale deeds, as is the case of the respondents in their counter affidavit.

¶65

It is well settled in law that any order having civil consequence is to be passed in consonance with the principles of natural justice of affording opportunity of hearing. The petitioners therefore had right of hearing before the impugned endorsement was passed.

¶66

Additionally, in the present petition vide order dated 17.11.2014 interim order was granted to maintain status quo with respect to the petitioners’ possession over the land in question pending further orders.

¶67

Consequently, to do complete justice, the impugned endorsement dated 09.11.2009 to the extent of the claim of the petitioners in the land in question vide sale deeds dated 30.04.2009, is quashed, only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, providing further that the respondents shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass fresh orders only with respect to the petitioners’ claim of land of Acs. 1.17 cents in Sy.No. 110/2, in accordance with law positively within a period of two (02) months from the date copy of this order is produced^beforethe respondents.

¶68

¶69

¶70

Till such decision is taken status quo as regards

¶71

possessionas on today shall be maintained.

¶72

It is clarified that this Court has not observed

¶73

anything on the merits of the claim of the petitioners^noronthe validity of the sale deeds or title of the petitioner or/and the petitioners’ vendor.

¶74

The writ petition stand allowed in part in aforesaid

¶75

terms.

¶76

No order as to costs.

¶77

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

¶78

shall also stand closed.

¶79

//TRUE COPY//

¶80

Sd/- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT^GISTRAR SECT^ OFFICER

¶81

To,

¶82

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶83

The Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Chittoor, Chittor^District.

¶84

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, Chittor District. 4. The Tahasildhar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal at Ramachandrapuram Village and Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶85