Disposed

Harijana Rangamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Mar 2024WP/3902/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside orders directing parties to the Civil Court and cancelling Pattadar Pass Books, holding that the revenue authority acted without jurisdiction. The Court directed the Tahsildar to conduct a fresh independent enquiry on merits.

What did the court decide?

Orders cancelling Pattadar Pass Books and directing parties to Civil Court set aside; matter remanded to Tahsildar for fresh enquiry within three months.

Harijana Rangamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

JN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY. THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 3902 OF 2020

¶6

Between: 1. Harijana Rangamma, W/o. late Marenna, Aged about 62 years, Cultivation, K. Thimmapuram Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶7

1. H. Bendakayala Marenna, S/o. Thimmanna, Aged about 45 years. Cultivation, K. Thimmapuram Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool^District.

¶8

1. Harijana Somanna, S/o. Thimmanna, Aged about 55 years. Cultivation, K. Thimmapuram Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶9

1. Madiga Jambanna, S/o. Thimmanna, Aged about 65 years. Cultivation, K. Thimmapuram Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶10

1. Marthamma, W/o.Harijana Mareppa, Aged about 49 years. Cultivation, K. Thimmapuram Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶11

1. Manikyamma, D/o.Harijana Naganna Aged about 42 years. Cultivation, K. Thimmapuram Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Petitioners

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, rep. by its Secretary.

¶14

The Joint Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, Kurnool District. 4. The Tahsildar, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District. 5. B. G. Madanna, S/o Boya Chinna Hanumanthu, K. Thimmapuram Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶15

B. G. Pedda Lakshmanna, S/o. Boya Pedda Hanumanathu, K. Thimmapuram Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

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 relating to the order in Rc.D5/1058/2018, dated 04-10-2019 passed by the 2nd respondent and Set aside the same by declaring the said order in confirming the order in R.C. (E) 810/2011, dated 09-072013 passed by the 3rd respondent cancelling Pattdar pass book and title deeds of the petitioners issued vide Khata NOs. 406, 405, 89, 239, 299 and 116 in respect of the lands in Sy.No. 224A/3 to an extent of Ac. 4.10 cents and Sy.No. 224A/4 to an extent of Ac. 6.42 cents situated at Pesaladinne Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the A P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1981 and

¶18

Rules made there under and also violative of Art. 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

¶19

lA NO: l’OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in ‘the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Leave accept this petition of Respondent No.2 in the writ petition No.3902 of 2022 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim STAY of all further proceedings in pursuance^{oforderinRc.D5/1058/2018} dated 04-10-2019 passed by the 2"'^ respondent and order in R.C. (E) 810/2011, dated 09-07-2013 passed by the 3^^^ respondent, pending disposal of above writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER

¶24

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

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6: SRI MURALI LINCOIN

¶26

The Court made the following order:

¶27

¶28

APHC010065602020

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶30

t3233]

¶31

{Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶32

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO: 3902/2020

¶36

Between;

¶37

Harijana Rangamma and Others

¶38

...PETITIONER(S)

¶39

AND

¶40

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner{S):

¶42

1.BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER '

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶44

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶45

2.MURALI LINCOLN

¶46

3.MURALI LINCOLN

¶47

The Court made the following Order:

¶48

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent^Nos.1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5 and 6.

¶49

This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings^oftheorder of the respondent No.2 dated 04.10.2019 directing both the parties to

¶50

¶51

go before the competent civil Court and subject to^outcome of the same the matter shall be decided under Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1981 thereafter. Till such time the scheduled lands be placed in the disputed list.

¶52

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the un-official respondents approached the respondent No.3 by giving a representation dated 06.05.2011 seeking the cancellation^ofPattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds which were given earlier^{infavourofthe} petitioners.

¶53

The respondent No.3 entertained the same and went into^the merits of the case and cancelled the Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds issued by the respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioners herein.

¶54

The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits^thatthe respondent No.3 ought not to have entertained the representation^of the un-official respondents in the absence of any Appeal preferred by them under Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands and Pattadar^PassBooks Act, 1981, hence aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the respondent No.2 questioning the orders passed by the respondent No.3.

¶55

Upon consideration of the matter on merits the respondent^No.2 passed--an order dated 04.10.2019 directing both the parties to

¶56

¶57

approach the civil Court for adjudication of their rights over the subject land and upon declaration of title appropriate proceedings can be taken before the Revenue authorities for mutation of their names in the Revenue records.

¶58

The only urge before this Court in this Writ Petition^isthatthere was no Appeal preferred by the un-offlcial respondents before the respondent No.3 under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1981.

¶59

On perusal of record, it is clear that there was no such Appeal preferred by the un-official respondents and it is also not a case of exercising the suo motu power of the respondent No.3. 9. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, it is just and necessary to direct the petitioners and as well as the un-official respondents to go before the Thasildar of Yemmiganur, Kurnool District for the purpose of claiming Pattadar Pass^Booksand Title Deeds in respect of the subject land by showing the necessary documents in support of their claims to enable the respondent No.4 to conduct enquiry for the said purpose. The proceedings of the respondent No.2, the orders of the respondent No.2^{dated04.10.2019} and the order of the respondent No.3 dated 09.07.2013^{areset-aside.}

¶60

The respondent No.4 shall conduct an independent enquiiy^on this issue to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the

¶61

¶62

¶63

un-official respondents with respect to the mutation^oftheir names m the Revenue records for the subject land and for issuance of Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds and by giving due opportunity to the petitioner and the un-official respondents and upon^{verificationofthe} records and the subject land an appropriate decision^shallbetaken on its own merits by the respondent No.4 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioners as well as the un-official respondents shall co-operate with the enquiry to conclude the enquiry. In this regard, the respondent No.4 is permitted to hear all the parties concerned including the petitioners and the un-official respondents.

¶64

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.^{Thereshallbeno} order as to costs.

¶65

As a sequel. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any,^shallstand closed.

¶66

Sd/-K. TATA RAO DEPUTY(11EGISTRAR

¶67

//TRUE COPY//

¶68

To,

¶69

The Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue^{Department, Secretariat,} Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Joint Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, Kurnool District.

¶70

The Tahsildar, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District.

¶71

One CC to Sri Butta Vijaya Bhasker, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Murali Lincoln, Advocate [OPUC]

¶72

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶73

Two CD Copies

RAM

'{■ HIGH COURT

DATED:20/03/2024

ORDER

WP.No.3902 of 2020

r
m
h'5-X 0 2 APR 20?‘1 CO
Current Section

¶82

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶83

\0^
OH V^
0^'

Harijana Rangamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harijana Rangamma 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

Sri Panchada Krishna Vs the Union of India

Ravuri Eshwaraiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S. Chandramouli, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kaluva Venkata Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vase Paul Raju Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Thikkavaram Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh