Gudla Appala Kondamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

GUDLA APPALA KONDAMMA, W/O. LATE APPALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,R/O. H.NO.53-24-11/1, BEHIND RTC DEPOT, MADDILAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH .

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P.

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER RDO, BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISHAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, VISHAKAPATNAM(RURAL), VISHAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P.

¶16

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICERS H O, P.M PALEM POLICE STATION, VISHAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT DISTRICT, A.P

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

2

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.P S P SURESH KUMAR

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶22

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶23

2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

3

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.3313 of 2024

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the 4^th respondent in issuing proceedings dated 26.12.2023 requesting the 5^th respondent to register a crime against the petitioner with regard to the claim of the petitioner on the basis of fabricated/forged/fake/bogus D-form patta alleged to be assigned to ex-serviceman with an intention to grab the valuable Government land.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶31

Initially, the petitioner has claimed the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Survey No.351/2 and 3 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam District on the ground of granting an assignment to her husband under ex-servicemen quota. When the said land was included in prohibitory list furnished under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the Act’), she made a request for deletion of the subject property from prohibitory list furnished under Section

¶32

4

¶33

22-A(1)(a) of the Act. As the same was not considered, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.32900 of 2018 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide orders dated 14.12.2019. When the said orders were not implemented, the petitioner constrained to file one more writ petition i.e., W.P.No.14481 of 2020 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide orders dated 27.08.2020 directing the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders. When the said orders were not considered left with no option, the petitioner has filed one more writ petition i.e., W.P.No.21915 of 2022 for not issuing the pattadar pass books and title deeds in her favour for the above subject property. The said writ petition was disposed of vide orders dated 22.07.2022 directing the 2^nd respondent i.e., the District Collector to consider the applications made by the petitioner on 23.01.2022 and 23.05.2022 and pass appropriate orders as per the records. When the said orders were also not considered, the petitioner has pressed the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act vide C.C.No.1188 of 2023 and based on the notice the 2^nd respondent has considered and rejected the claim of the petitioner vide orders dated 27.05.2023. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed one more application for

¶34

5

¶35

review the said decision based on the records and the same is pending. While pending the said review application, the 2^nd respondent has issued directions to the 4^th respondent on 21.11.2023 with a direction to conduct enquiry into the documents filed by the petitioner and lodge a complaint against the petitioner for producing fake and fabricated documents. Based on the above said directions, the 4^th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings on 26.12.2023 requesting the 5^th respondent to register a crime.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made his submissions that when the 2^nd respondent has requested the 4^th respondent to probe an enquiry, but without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice to the petitioner straightaway the 4^th respondent has requested the 5^th respondent for registration of a crime which is contrary to the records and also the directions issued by the 2^nd respondent. Furthermore, even on perusal of the findings given by the 4^th respondent in the impugned proceedings, it shows that they are not based on record and the 4^th respondent has not conducted any physical verification of the site and he has also not mentioned what documents he has verified before coming to such

¶37

6

¶38

conclusion. He further submitted that even the 4^th respondent has not raised his hands with regard to the genuineness of the husband of the petitioner. Whether he worked in the Army or not and without conducting a proper enquiry both physical as well as the records, the respondents ought not to have come to such conclusion and ought not to have requested the 5^th respondent for registration of a crime.

¶39

Reply to the said contentions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has made his submissions based on the record. In fact, he has made his submissions with regard to the merits of the case, but with regard to the procedure adopted while issuing the impugned proceedings the counter is silent.

¶40

6. Considering the said submissions and on perusal of the

¶41

record as well as the averments made in the counter, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case as the 2^nd respondent has directed the 4^th respondent to probe an enquiry and take appropriate action. But in the instant case, on perusal of the impugned proceedings, it shows that the 4^th respondent has not

¶42

7

¶43

followed any procedure and also not forthcoming the documents which they have verified.

¶44

In view of the same, the impugned proceedings dated 26.12.2023 are set aside remanding the matter to the 4^th respondent to take appropriate action as per the directions issued by the 2^nd respondent in his order dated 21.11.2023 after conducting a detailed enquiry by providing an opportunity to the petitioner also.

¶45