The State of Ap Vs T C Rajarathnam

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent above named Appellants beg to prefer this Memorandum of Writ Appeal against the orders dt.6-5-2022 in W.P.No. 44992 of 2018 for the following among other

¶11

Between:

¶12

THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE, AMARAVATI, A.P. T

¶13

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, A.P. 3.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR, (PRESENT TIRUPATI DISTRICT)

¶15

THE JOINT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR ( PRESENT TIRUPATI DISTRICT) 4. )

¶16

THE SUB COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI CHITTOOR DISTRICT (PRESENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATI)

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (PRESENT TIRUPATI DISTRICT

¶18

...APPELLANT(S)

¶19

AND

¶20

T C RAJARATHNAM, PER LRS 2 3 S/O CHENCHUPILLAI AGED 67 YEARS, OCC PENSIONER RESIDENT OF CHANDRAGIRI VILLAGE

¶21

2

¶22

CHANDRAGIRI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. PRESENT TIRUPATI DISTRICT), ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.

¶23

T SARADA, W/O RAJARATHNAM R/O CHANDRAGIRI VILLAGE, CHANDRAGIRI MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT (PRESENT TIRUPATI DISTRICT) ANDHRA PRADESH

¶24

T C NAGENDRA KUMAR, S/O T C RAJARATHNAM R/O CHANDRAGIRI VILLAGE CHANDRAGIRI MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT ( PRESENT TIRUPATI DISTRICT) ANDHRA PRADESH PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS OF DECEASED 1 OF PETITIONER AS PER CO DT 28/12/2021 IN LA NO 1/2021

¶25

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶27

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 condone the delay of 1231 DAYS the present Writ Appeal filed against the order dated 06.05.2022 passed in W.P.No. 44992 of 2018 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal and allow the Writ Appeal and pass s

¶28

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶29

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 order dated 06.05.2022 passed in W.P.No. 44992 of 2018 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal and allow the Writ Appeal and pass

¶30

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶31

1.GP FOR ASSIGNMENT

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

1.K RAMAMOHAN

¶34

2.SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI

¶35

3

¶36

The Court made the following Judgment:

¶37

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

¶38

The respondent No.1 herein (is represented by his wife and son as his legal representatives after his demise) had been granted patta to an extent of Ac.5-00 cents in Sy.No.78/2(P) of Mangalam Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor District, by the Settlement Officer, on 19.09.1981, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’). This patta became the subject matter of litigation and reached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh by way of W.A.No.1582 of 2003 and 1644 of 2003. A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court after considering the entire litigation starting from the grant of the patta by the Settlement Officer and the order in appeal by the Director of Settlement, dated 20.08.1985 and the revisional order of the Commissioner, Survey and the order of Commissioner of Appeals, dated 30.05.2001, had held in favour of the respondent. The Special Leave Petitions filed against this order bearing Nos.12594-12595 of 2016 came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by an order, dated 15.07.2016.

¶39

Thereafter, the 1^st respondent approached the District Collector for removal of the said land from the prohibitory register under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The District Collector rejected the said application by order, dated Nil/09/2018. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the 1^st respondent approached this Court by way of W.P.No.44992 of 2018. A

¶40

4

¶41

learned Single Judge of this Court, by its judgment, dated 06.05.2022 allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of rejection, dated Nil/09/2018. Apart from this, learned Single Judge also directed the 6^th respondent – Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban Mandal to delete the subject land from the list of properties prohibited from the register under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. It was also clarified, subsequently that the direction for deletion was to the District Collector and not to the Tahsildar.

¶42

The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition primarily on the ground that the order of the District Collector did not contain any reasons except the ground that the Settlement Officer, who had passed the order was one A.D.V.Reddy, against whom a circular had been issued directing all officials to disregard any grant of patta by Sri A.D.V.Reddy. Thus, the learned Single Judge has also taken a view that such a circular would not be binding and in any event there were no reasons in the order.

¶43

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have approached this Court contending that the learned Single Judge, ought to have remanded the matter back to the District Collector for appropriate consideration.

¶44

In the normal course, we would agree with such a contention. However, in the present case, the patta granted to the 1^st respondent has been upheld in the entire line of appeals and revisions that are available under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Estates Abolition Act as well as the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the question of going into the validity of the

¶45

5

¶46

patta again would not arise. In such circumstances, we do not see any purpose being served if the matter is remanded back to the District Collector.

¶47

The learned Government Pleader would also contend that there are

¶48

various other claims over the very same land between the private parties and all these proceedings are still pending before the revenue authorities at some stage or the other. This contention would also not make any difference on the question of deletion of the property from the prohibitory register. Any competing claims made by private parties would be resolved in accordance with the provisions of law and the decisions of the authorities under the appropriate law.

¶49