Dismissed

Muligeri Chinna Hanumanthu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Apr 2024WP/8358/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging fraudulent mutation of land records. The Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding the sale deed could not be adjudicated. It directed the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy under Section 5(4) of the Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, before the Tahsildar. The petitions were dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without costs, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Tahsildar under Section 5(4) of the Act.

Muligeri Chinna Hanumanthu, Vs The State of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY. THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI .

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 8358 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Muligeri Chinna Hanumanthu, S/o M Allappa, Hindu Madiga, Aged about 64 Years. Residing at 2-15. S.C Colony. Vandagallu Village-518 313. Kosigi Mandal. Kurnool District. A.P. Cell- 95052 88190.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) and Chief Secretary. Revenue Department. AP Secretariat. Velagapudi -522 503. Amaravati. Guntur District.

¶13

The Collector. Kurnool. Kurnool District.

¶14

The Tahsildar. Kosigi -518 313. Kurnool District.

¶15

The Revenue Inspector. Vandagallu Village. Kosigi -518 313. Kurnool District.

¶16

The Village Revenue Officer. Vandagallu Village. Kosigi -518 313, Kurnool District.

¶17

Sub-Inspector of Police, Kosigi -518 313, Kurnool District.

¶18

Diddi Ramulu, . S/o Late Pakkerappa, Aged about 48 years, resident of 1/145-2, Opposite Old Chavidi, Vandagallu Village - 518 313, Kosigi ; Mandal, Kurnool District, A.P. Cell- 78930 30092

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

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 or Direction, more particularly^{oneinthenature} of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents no.2 to 5 in not cancelling the Fraudulent ROR entry of 5.29 acres^{invidekhatano.210} and to re-issuance of fresh pattadar passbook to the petitioner by entering the subject land 5.29 Acres situated in Sy.No 15 in Vandagallu Village, Kosigi Mandal, Kurnool District, irrespective of continuous prayers to them which is arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and violation of the Section 9 of ROR Act, 1973 , Sections 4, 5 ,5-A,⁹ of The Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Article 14,19, 21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and subsequently^directthe respondents no.2 to 6 to expeditiously consider Spandana Application and Receipt Copy numbered KUR202311204376 dated 20-11-2023 regarding the deletion of fraudulent ROR entry of 5.29 acres^{andforthere-issuance} of fresh passbook to the petitioner, where Petitioner^{istheabsolute} owner for the said scheduled land with continuous enjoyment and permanent possession since 1954.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

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 diirect the respondent no.I for fair, independent, and in-depth enquiry at CCLA Commission Level for the cancellation of fraudulent ROR entries of 5.29 Acres of subject land situated in Sy.No 15 in

¶23

Vandagallu Village, Kosigi Mandal, Kurnool District^{andforre-issuanceof} pass book for the Petitioner; till pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶24

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶25

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.2 conduct an Independent Enquiry expeditiously by exercising their powers in the Scheduled Property under Sec.9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (ROR Act), and to issue fresh pass book for the petitioner by deleting the fraudulent ROR entry of 5.29 Acres of subject land situated in Sy.No 15 in Vandagallu Village, Kosigi Mandal, Kurnool District: till pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. KAKARLA CHANDRA SEKHAR

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR HOME

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.7: NONE

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.8358 OF 2024

¶34

Muligeri Chinna Hanumanthu, S/o M.AIIappa, Aged about 64 years, Residing at 2-15, S.C.Colony, Vandagallu yillage-518 313, Kosigi Mandal, Kurnool District, A.P.

¶35

... Petitioner

¶36

Versus

¶37

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) & Chief Secretary, Revenue Dep^artment, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, GuritUr District and Six others.

¶38

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Kakarla Chandra Sekhar

¶39

Counsel for respondents : GP for Revenue & GP for Home

¶40

O RD E R

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 and learned Assistant Government^Pleaderfor Home appearing on behalf of the 6‘^ respondent. Notice^tothe7 th respondent is dispensed with since no adverse order, affecting the

¶42

right or interest of 7'^ respondent, is passed.

¶43

Page 2 of 5

¶44

SRS, J WP No.8358/2024

¶45

The writ petition is filed to deelare the inaction of the respondents 1 to 5 in cancelling RoR entry of an extent^ofAc.5.29 cents vide Khata No.210, and issuing fresh Pattadar^{Passbooktothe} petitioner in respect of the subject land in Sy.No.15 of Vandagallu Village, Kosigi Mandal, Kurnool District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s father purchased the property under registered^saledeed dated 05.01.1954 and he continued in possession and enjoymentof the property till his death. The petitioner also availed loan in the year 1985 and the petitioner’s elder brother obtained loan by mortgaging the property to Arlabanda P.A.C.S., in the year 1998. The 7th respondent created fraudulent RoR entries. Inspite of petitioners approach to the District Collector in Spandana Programme on 20.11.2023 , no action was initiated.

¶47

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions of the Tahsildar of Kosigi Mandal, Kurnool District, would submit that the petitioner’s brother M.Anjinaiah sold the property of an extent of Ac.5.29 cents in Sy.No.15 of Vandagallu Village of Kosigi Mandal in the year 2007 to the 7**^ respondent by way of an unregistered sale deed. The 7^*^ respondent was granted^Pattadar

¶48

¶49

Page 3 of 5

¶50

SRS,0 WP No.8358/2024

¶51

¶52

Pass Book in the year 2004 V/c/e Khata No.210. As per^thewebland records, name of the 7**^ respondent was incorporated^asPattadaron 24.06.2015. The 7**^ respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property.

¶53

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would^submitthat no such transaction has taken place.

¶54

While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not go into disputed questions of fact. Thus, this Court will not go into and adjudicate the aspect whether the petitioner’s brother sold the property to the 7th respondent or not. The fact remains name of 7 respondent is mutated in record of rights as on today in respect^{oflandreferredto} supra. If name of the 7 T respondent is mutated without following procedure or, per se, illegal the petitioner must avail^theremedies available under the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

¶55

7, In fact, against the mutation of name of the 7 respondentⁱⁿ RoR and issuance of Pattadar Passbook, the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing appeal under Section 5(4)^oftheAndhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). In fact, as per the instructions of the learned

¶56

Page 4,of 5 " SRSJ WP No.8358/2024

¶57

th Tahsildar. Kosigi Mandal, Pattadar Pass Book was issued to the 7 2004 vide Khata No.210 and his name was respondent in the year recorded in webland records on 24.06.2015.

¶58

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, into other disputed questions of fact, the Writ Petition without going avail alternative and is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to affective remedy of appeal provided under the Act.^Nocosts.

¶59

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

¶60

stand dismissed.

¶61

Sd/- S.SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶62

//TRUE COPY//

¶63

To,

¶64

Andhra Pradesh. AP Secretariat,

¶65

The Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶66

The Tahsildar, Kosigl - 518 313, Kurnool District.

¶67

The Revenue Inspector, Vandagallu Village,^{Kosigi-518313,Kurnool} District. Vandagallu Village, Kosigi -518 313,

¶68

5 The Village Revenue Officer Kurnool District.

¶69

6 Sub-inspector of Police, Kosigi -518 313, Kurnooi District. KAKARLA CHANDRA SEKHAR Advocate [OPUC]

¶70

1. One CC to SRI revenue. High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶71

1. Two CCS to GP FOR

¶72

Two C.D Copies

MBT

•... w

HIGH COURT

DATED:12/04/2024

ORDER

WP.No.8358 of 2024

DISPOSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS

Muligeri Chinna Hanumanthu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muligeri Chinna Hanumanthu, 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

Eeka Subba Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chukkaluri Chinna Krishnamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

State Bank of India, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chikoiu Vijay kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bondalapati Srinivasulu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

D Bala Subramanyam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh