Dismissed

Dasari Krishnamma S/o Muthyalu v. The Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-1

Telangana HC9 Oct 2007WP/10083/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner who cultivated temple land for over 25 years challenged her rejection as a landless poor person under the AP Endowments Act. The court held she lacked tenant status due to missing approved leases and affirmed the order deeming her an encroacher.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Dasari Krishnamma S/o Muthyalu Vs The Regional Joint… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

¶2

W.P.No.10083 of 2007

¶3

th Date: 9 October, 2007

¶4

Between :-

¶5

Dasari Krishnamma .. Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowments Department, Kakinada and 3 others .. Respondents

¶8

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

¶9

Writ Petition No.10083 of 2007

¶10

ORDER:-

¶11

This Court ordered notice before admission on 9-52007 and ordered status quo for a limited period and subsequent thereto issued rule nisi and extended the order of status quo granted earlier until further orders. W.V.M.P.No.1690/2007 is filed by respondents 3 and 4 to vacate the interim order.

¶12

2. With the consent of the Counsel on record, the Writ Petition itself is heard finally.

¶13

3. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1^st respondent vide its impugned order made in appeal No.32/2007 dt.20-3-2007 which arises out of an order of 2^nd respondent vide its order Rc.No.B3/1536/2005 dt.29-8-2006 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner as a landless poor person is contrary to spirit of Section 82(2) of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to confirm the right of the petitioner as owner of the wet land in Sy.No.34/1 to an extent of Ac.1-40 cents vide patta No.360 situated at Chintada village of Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District in the interest of justice and to pass such other suitable orders.

¶14

4. It is stated that the Writ Petitioner is a landless poor person and has been cultivating the land since more than 25 years and in fact the lands belonged to Sri Mallikharjuna Swami Temple in Sy.No.34/1 to an extent of Ac.1-40 cents of Chintada village, Jami Mandal in Vizianagaram District. It is also stated that the petitioner

¶15

had spent considerable amount for leveling the land into cultivation and all his family members are depending on the said land and they have no other land except the small extent of land. It is further stated that the petitioner has been paying lease amounts regularly and the respondents 3 and 4 had taken land tax for the year 20062007 and it shows that his family members are in occupation and possession and enjoyment of small extent of land.

¶16

Sl.	Name of the	Sy.No.	Extent	Receipt No.	Classification
No.	occupant		Ac.Cents	& Date	and Patta
	Dasari Krishnamma	34/1	1-40	292 25-11-2006	Wet Patta 360

¶17

It is also stated that the 2^nd respondent passed a common order while rejecting the claim. Hence, the petitioner and other petitioners are taking the common pleadings. It is also stated that the petitioner in this Writ Petition and the petitioners in other Writ Petitions had applied in the year 1993 for pattadar pass books and title deeds to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jami Mandal and accordingly after due verification and physical possession over the respective lands by the petitioner and other petitioners, the Mandal Revenue Officer had issued Pattedar pass book and title book in the year 1994 and 1995 to all of them. It is further stated that all the petitioners had made

¶18

number of oral requests to the respondents No.2 and 3 to consider their cases under Section 82(2) of Act 30/87 since they have been cultivating the lands over 25 years as well as landless poor persons but the respondents postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. It is further stated that suddenly the 2^nd respondent had served a notice on 25-4-2005 under Section 82(1) of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 (Act 30/87) for cancellation of existing lease and asked them to vacate within 30 days. It is also stated that immediately the petitioner and others had filed Writ Petition W.P.No.12272/2005 on the file of this Court questioning the highhanded action of the 2^nd respondent since the petitioner and others are small farmers. It is also further stated that this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition W.P.No.12272/2005 on 276-2005 with an observation directed the petitioners in that Writ Petition to submit a representation to the respondents 1, 2 and 3 stating that the holding of all the petitioners either on ownership of cultivating tenant would support their claim to being landless poor persons within the meaning of the explanation to Section 82(2) of the Act 30/87 and further held on such representation being made, the same would be considered by the respondents

¶19

before proceeding further to take action as stated in the impugned notice. It is also further stated that after receiving the order in W.P.No.12272/2005 the petitioner and others have filed a representation on 29-6-2005 by way of Registered Post Ack. Due to the respondents 1, 2 and 3. It is also stated that the respondents 1, 2 and 3 have acknowledged the said representations on 30-62005 and 6-7-2005. It is further stated that on 1-9-2005 the 2^nd respondent has served a notice vide his letter No.NIL/2005 to the petitioner and others to file documentary evidence within three days and accordingly the petitioner and others had filed documentary evidence – lease of agricultural land, tax receipts and Pattedar pass books and title deeds within the three days. It is also further stated that the 2^nd respondent had not satisfied with the above documentary evidence and again directed them orally to file a small farmer certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer and as such the petitioner and others filed applications to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jami Mandal on 25-9-2005. It is also stated in para 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the petitioner along with others met 2^nd respondent and requested to consider their issue on the basis of the documents already filed by the petitioner and others since

¶20

the M.R.O. is postponing the issuance of certificates due to his busy schedule and that due to Zilla Parishad and Panchayat elections, he could not issue certificates of small farmer to the petitioner and others. It is further stated that while so, on 5-7-2006 the 1^st respondent issued final notice to the petitioner and others vide notice No.B3/1860/2005 General Admn., wherein directing the petitioner and others to attend on 13-7-2006 along with certificate if any and if they failed to do so, then action would be taken as per law. It is further stated that on 13-7-2007 the petitioner along with others have filed once again the relevant documents like agricultural land, tax receipts, Pattedar pass books, title books and requested her that so far the M.R.O., had not issued small farmer certificate, but the 1^st respondent not satisfying with their documentary evidence, passed an order on 29-82006 rejecting all claim applications of the petitioner and others on the ground that they are not obtained the small farmer certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer, which was received by the petitioner on 15-9-2006. It is also further stated by the petitioner that on knowing rejection of his claim application, he met the Mandal Revenue Officer of Jami Mandal and explained about the rejection of claims by the 1^st respondent and thereafter the Mandal

¶21

Revenue Officer of Jami Mandal had issued small farmer certificates to the petitioner and others vide his proceedings L.Dis.No.457/06A, dt.29-9-2006 and after receipt of the small farmer certificates, they approached the respondents 1 and 2 and filed a common representation on 2-10-2006 to the 1^st respondent requesting him that since they received certificate on 309-2006 from the M.R.O. regarding landless poor person and small farmer certificate and hence re-examine into the matter and consider the same, but the respondents 1 and 2 have refused to take the same on the ground that they already had passed orders and communicated to all. It is also further stated by the petitioner that now the respondents 2 and 3 have visited his land on 5-5-2007 and directed him to vacate the land on the ground that his appeal was dismissed by the 1^st respondent. It is also stated by the petitioner that in fact, there is a standing crop in his land and he requested respondents 2 and 3 to stop their highhanded action since he invested huge money for raising vegetable crop, but the respondents 2 and 3 did not heed his request and granted 4 days time for vacating the land. The petitioner also stated that because of lack of money he could not file the Writ Petition before 1-52007 and that therefore the respondents may at any time

¶22

evict him within 4 days and in the event of they evicting him, he may lose his right over the land and also he will be put to great hardship since there is a standing crop in his field. Hence, there is a great urgency for filing the present Writ Petition for stopping the highhanded action of the respondents. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition raising several grounds. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the vacate application, which was sworn to by the Manager of Sri Mallikarjuna Swami Temple, it was stated in para 3 that it is false on the part of the petitioner to allege that he had been cultivating the land for more than 25 years. It is also stated that the petitioner is not an approved lessee for 6 years prior to coming into force of the Act No.30 of 1987 and he initially cultivated an extent of Ac.1.40 cents without approval of the lease from the competent authority and later he was given lease from 1993 to 1996 for three years. It is further stated that there was no lease in favour of the petitioner from 1996 to 2002 and was granted lease for 3 years from 1-4-2002 to 31-3-2005 and that after the expiry of lease on 31-3-2005, there is no approved lease in his favour for the year 2005-2006 till today. It is also further stated that for claiming the benefit of Section 82 of the Act No.30 of 1987 the petitioner is not a cultivating tenant with a lease obtained in public auction and the

¶23

Maktha he is presently paying is more in the nature of damages and it does not elevate him to the status of an approved lessee and more over, he had defaulted to an extent of Rs.8,092/- till today overall. It is further stated that notice in Form-I was issued to the petitioner on 25-42005 after which he approached the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments for declaration as landless poor person, which was rejected on 29-8-2006. It is also further stated that the petitioner’s appeal was rejected by the Regional Joint Commissioner on 20-3-2007 in Appeal No.32/2007. The petitioner is having a remedy by way of revision to Government, but however, instead of availing the said remedy, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶24

6. On a careful reading of the order impugned, this Court is satisfied that even if the facts narrated by the writ petitioner to be taken into consideration, it cannot be said that the petitioner enjoys the status of a tenant and further it is pertinent to note that though ample opportunity had been given, no acceptable evidence to establish the relevant facts had been placed before the authorities concerned and even otherwise on a careful analysis of the order impugned, this Court is satisfied that the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multizone-I, Endowments

¶25

Department, Kakinada – respondent No.1, had taken into consideration all the facts and recorded a positive finding that the appellant to be termed as an encroacher within the meaning of Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987. Hence, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, whatsoever, and accordingly, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶26

_________________ Justice P.S.Narayana

¶27

9^th October, 2007 smr

Dasari Krishnamma S/o Muthyalu v. The Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-1

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasari Krishnamma S/o Muthyalu v. The Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-1

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 M. Rama Krishna Rao S/o Venkata Ramana Vs The District Collector

Shaik Moulali, Vs The Commissioner, Civil Supplies Departments

Kolli Rama Krishna S/o Syamalaiah Vs The Commissioner of Civil Supplies Civil Supplies

Appana Sanyasi Naidu S/o Demudu Vs The Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-1

Smt. Parvathi Vs The Joint Collector (Cs), Sangareddy

Kamireddy Siva Reddy S/o K. Venkata Narayanappa Vs The Joint Collector