Meesala Lakshmi Alias G Rukmini Devi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

MEESALA LAKSHMI ALIAS G RUKMINI DEVI, W/O. SESIBHUSHANA RAO, AGED 70 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 16-5-203, HAYATHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT.

¶10

PANDIRI VARALAKSHMI,, W/O. LATE SURYA RAO, AGED 71 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 16-5-107, HAYATHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, A.P., GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶16

THE SPECIAL GRADE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND PROTECTION CELL, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, KAKINADA.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER, SRIKAKULAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SRIKAKULAM.

¶18

THE JOINT SUBREGISTRAR1, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶19

2

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

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 topleased to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the memo in Rc.No.L2/18021(35)/6/2023 dt.13.03.2025 issued by the Commissioner Endowments Department, the 2nd respondent herein rejecting the request of the 1st petitioner for deletion of Ac.0-26 cents of land in Sy.No.l70/8C situated in Gujarathipeta revenue village of Srikakulam Mandal from the list annexure - III vide Lr. in Rc. No. L3/9569/2016, dt.07- 05-2016 furnished U/sec. 22A (1)(c) of Registration Act, 1908 as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and without any authority of law or jurisdiction and set aside the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to delete the land in Sy.No.l70/8C of Hayathinagaram, Gujarathipeta revenue village, Srikakulam Mandal and Srikakulam District from the list furnished u/sec.22A (1)(c) of Registration Act, 1908 and further direct the 6th respondent to register the deeds of alienation that would be submitted by the petitioners in respect of their house properties situated in Sy.No.170/8C of Hayathinagaram, Gujarathipeta revenue village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

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 Pleased to suspend the operation of notification Lr. in Rc.No.L3/9569/2016, dt.07.05.2016 issued by Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., the 2nd respondent herein in respect of Land in Sy.No.170/8C of Gujarathipeta, Revenue Village notified in Annexure-III as well as the memo Rc,No.L2/18021/(35)/6/2023, dt.13.03.2025, pending disposal of writ petition and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶25

1.V SUDHAKAR REDDY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶29

3

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

ORDER :-

¶32

Heard Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing for the respondents.

¶33

The grievance of the petitioners in instant Writ Petition is against the inclusion of the land in Sy.No.170/8C of Hayathinagaram, Gujarathipeta revenue village, Srikakulam Mandal & District, under the prohibitory category in terms of the provisions Section 22(A)(1)(c) of the Registration Act,1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It is contented that the subject property is private patta land of the petitioners, having purchased the same through registered sale leads. It is contented that the subject property originally belonged to one Kamarshi Venkatamma, who was the absolute owner of the subject property. Having acquired the title to the same through a decree dated 16.02.1904 in O.S.No.120 of 1903 on the file of Court of the District Munsif, Srikakulam. After her death, the said property had devolved upon his adopted son, Sri Kamarshi Chathurbhuj Dev, and his name has also been recorded in the revenue records. The petitioners have purchased the subject property in 1980 from the said Kamarshi Chathurbhuj Dev for valuable consideration. Since the date of purchase, the petitioners and their family members are in possession and occupation of the subject property after making their respective residential houses. When they have proposed to alienate the subject property, it had come to their notice that the same has been notified

¶34

4

¶35

under Section 22(A)(1)(c) of ‘the Act’. Thus made representations seeking deletion of the entries from prohibited list. The same was rejected. Hence the instant Writ Petition.

¶36

Vide the impugned proceedings, the 2^nd respondent rejected the request made by the petitioners on the ground that the subject property in the revenue records is standing in the name of ‘Sri Kasivisweswara Swami temple’. It is contented by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned proceedings have been passed without taking into consideration the report of the Town Surveyor, where it has been reported that the entire extent of Ac.0-26 cents is recorded as patta land and it does not belong to the Endowment Department. It is further contended that only in an extent of Ac.0-01 cent, it is recorded as ‘Sri Asirithalli Ammavari temple’. He accordingly submitted a report to the Tahsildar along with a statement of sub-division certifying that subject land does not belong to the Endowment Department. The Tahsildar also submitted a report dated 27.03.2023, furnished copies of adangals to the Commissioner, Endowments Department. From perusal of the same, it would also reflect that the pattadar's name in the respective column is shown as Kamarshi Chathurbhuja Dev, the vendor of the petitioner.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the District Endowments Officer, vide his proceedings dated 28.04.2023, had reported that during Mebhumi survey, the land out of Ac.0-26 cents, Ac.0-01 cents is in the name of Asirithalli Ammavari temple whereas,

¶38

5

¶39

Ac.0-25 cents of land was recorded as Kamarshi Chathurbhuja Dev. After the sub-division. The learned counsel further contends that the 2^nd respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the subject land belongs to Sri K. Kasi Vishweshwar Swamy., he further argues that there is no such temple in the name of Kasi Vishweshwar Swamy in Hayathinagaram of Gujarathipet at any point of time. Thus argues that the entry, made in the SLR register was an erroneous entry, therefore the same was sought to be corrected. The said correction cannot form the basis for his conclusion in the light of the reports of the Town Surveyor SLR, and the Municipal Commissioner’s report.

¶40

Considered the submissions.

¶41

As noted from the order of the 2^nd respondent, he did not refer to

¶42

the respective reports of the town surveyor and the report of the Municipal Commissioner dated 11.07.2022.

¶43

Having regard to the same, the order impugned in the Writ Petition is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 2^nd respondent for passing appropriate orders afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners are also granted liberty to file before the 2^nd respondent, all necessary documents in support of their claim. After filing of those documents, the Commissioner is directed to pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of filing of the documents by the petitioners.

¶44

6

¶45