Allowed

Ajmeera Raghavulu S/o Bheemla v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by

Telangana HC7 Jul 2008WP/26115/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the revisional order dismissing a Land Transfer Regulation case. The writ petition was allowed as the revisional authority failed to consider an application for impleadment of the legal representative of a deceased party, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order under revision set aside; matter remanded to revisional authority for fresh consideration after considering implead petition of legal representative.

Ajmeera Raghavulu S/o Bheemla Vs The Government… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26115 of 2007

¶6

Between: Ajmeera Raghavulu S/o Bheemla Schedule Tribe, R/o Thungaram Village, Chandrugonda mandal, Khammam District.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by the Secretary Social Welfare (LTR-2) (Tribal Welfare) Department, Secretariat Buildigns, Hyderabad.

¶10

2 Tthe Additional Agent to the Government & Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Authority, Bhadrachalm, Khammam District.

¶11

3 the Agency Divisional Officer, Kothagude, Khammam District 4 The Tahsildar, Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam District.

¶12

5 Guguloth Veeru Since Died his father and legal heir Guguloth Roopla S/o Mangathya Lambada,

¶13

R/o Tungaram Village, Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam Ditrict. 6 Banoth Ganesh S/o Lakhpati

¶14

being minro rep by his natural father Banoth Lakhpathi S/o Ramulu aged 37 years R/o Takula banjara VIllage, Thungaram Post, Chandragunda mndal, Khammam district.

¶15

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue appropriate Writ or order or orders and more particularly in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring that the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in LTR Case No. 2/04/CHG, dated 30-11-2004 and as confirmed by the 2nd respondent in CMA No. 24/05/CHG, dated 28-052005 and as confirmed by 1st respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 125 Social Welfare (LTR-2) Department on dt 15-11-2007 in respect of the agricultural west land admeasuring acres 0.27 guntas, in Survey No. 39(39/3/E), situated at Tungaram Village, Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam District, are illegal, malafide, arbtirary, violative of principles of natural justice, against to the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and much against to the legal and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and set a sid ethe same and consequently direct the respondents agricultural wet land, including

¶17

standing paddy crop, admeasuring acres 0.27 guntas, in Survey No. 39(39/3/E) situated at Tungaram Village, Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam District and to pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience, as otherwise, the petitioner shall be put to grave and inexplicable hardship and injury.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.PALIVELASATYARAJA BABU

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶20

The Court made the following :

¶21

O R D E R :

¶22

1. This writ petition has been filed by Ajmeera Raghavulu assailing the orders passed by 3^rd respondent-The Agency Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, Khammam District as confirmed by the 2^nd respondentAdditional Agent to the Government and Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Authority, Bhadrachalam, Khammam on appeal and 1^st respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Secretary, Social Welfare (LTR-2) (Tribal Welfare) Department, Hyderabad in revision.

¶23

2. Guguloth Veeru submitted a representation before the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Bhadrachalam on 1.1.2004 stating that he is a pattedar of Ac.0.27 guntas of land in S.No.39/3 of Thungaram village, Chjandrugonda Mandal, Khammam District and the land is in occupation of a non-tribal viz., Smt.Kannemala Shanthamma. The said representation came to be forwarded to Agency Divisional Officer, Kothagudem (3^rd respondent). Thereupon a show cause notice in Form-E as required under Rule 7(2) of A.P. (Scheduled Area) Land Transfer Rules, 1969 was served on Smt.Kannemala Shanthamma in a manner specified under Rule 10 of A.P. (Scheduled Area) Land Transfer Rules, 1969.

¶24

3. Sri.Azmeera Raghavulu, the petitioner herein entered appearance before the Agency Divisional Officer, Kothagudem-3^rd respondent and submitted an application on 31.8.2004 claiming the property under an unregistered sale deed. According to him, he purchased the said Ac.0.27

¶25

guntas of land from Smt.Kannemala Shanthamma for a consideration of Rs.35,000/-. Notice was caused on the petitioner making him as one of the respondents in L.T.R.Case No.2/04/CHG. After due enquiry, 3^rd respondent found that Smt.Kannemala Shanthamma and Venkateswarlu executed the document in favour of the petitioner subsequent to the initiation of the proceedings to circumvent the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Area) Land Transfer Rules, 1959 read with Act.1/70. The relevant portion of the order passed by 3^rd respondent reads as hereunder:

¶26

“ On verification of the simple sale deed it is found that the document is executed by Smt.Kannemala Shanthamma and Venkateshwarlu in favour of Azmeera Raghavulu, S/o Bheemla selling the land to an extent of Ac.0.27 gts wet land in Sy.No.39 of Thungaram(V) for Rs.35,000/- on 13.1.2004. This document is executed after initiating the LTR case from the Spl.Dy.Collector (TW) Bhadrachalam on 1.1.2004. It is clearly established that the respondent Kannemala Shanthamma in collusion with 2^nd respondent Sri.Azmeera Raghavulu to defeat the proceedings under LTR. The sale between Shanthamma and Azmeera Raghavulu is only with malafied intention. Hence, the sale agreement between Shanthamma and Azmeera Raghavulu has not taken into consideration. On perusal of the village records the respondent name Kannemala Shanthamma is recorded as cultivator for the Sy.No.39/3/E to an extent of Ac.0-27 cents of Thungaram (V) for the year 1994-95 pahani. Hence, it is held proved that possession of the land under question is with the 1^st respondent and which is in contravention of section 3(1) of AP(SA)LTR, 1959read with 1/70.

¶27

Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section 2(a) of the section 3 of the APSLA LTR 1959 read with 1/70 it is ordered the ejectment against the respondent or whoever is in the possession of the immovable property described in the schedule and resume the possession to the pattedar or his legal heirs under the cover of panchanama.”

¶28

4. The petitioner filed an appeal before 2^nd respondent who took the appeal on file as CMA.24/5 CGH. The appellate authority, on reappreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that Smt.Kannemala Shanthamma did not produce any evidence or put any claim to prove her possession and enjoyment and that Azmeera Raghavulu has no

¶29

locustandi to resist the proceedings initiated under the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended by Regulation 1970. With the above observations, the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on 28.5.2005. I deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the order passed in the appeal and it is thus:

¶30

“ In this case the original petitioner Sri Guguloth Veeru sent an application to Spl.Dy.Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam and the said application was forwarded to the proper court. There is no meaning saying that Spl.Dy.Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam has no territorial jurisdiction. Spl.Dy.Collector (TW) has jurisdiction over the entire district to enquire into the implementation of L.T.R. and other tribal laws. As far as the trial and passing orders are concerned it was done by Revenue Divisional officer, Kothagudem who is the Agency Divnl.Officer for Chandrugonda Mandal. SDC(TW) has rightly transferred or sent the application to the proper court to decide the case. As such there is no wrong in doing so hence this contention is also duly rejected.

¶31

This court strongly believes that it is a clear violation of Regulation, because the Pahani for the schedule land shows one Guguloth Roopla S/o Mangithya as pattadar and Kannemalla Santhamma who is 2^nd respondent herein as the occupant Smt.Santhamma must explain how she came into possession of the scheduled land in 199495, where as in 1970-71 Sri.G.Roopla was the occupant. If she is the pattadar and she in continuous possession of the schedule land prior to the act 1/59, her name would have been recorded in enjoyers column of the pahani as well as pattadars column from at least 1969-70. Since that is not the case, she has no lawful title. Her possession is not valid. As such she cannot sell the property which is not belonging to her to another person, tribal or non tribal. In this court, nor in the lower court, the respondent No.2 K.Shanthamma has not produced any evidence or claim to prove her possession and enjoyment. Rather a third person Azmeera Raghavulu who has no locus standi in this case is making an attempt, claiming the ownership of the land. He is also claiming the land only on the basis of an alleged sale deed dated 13.1.2004.”

¶32

The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order passed by the appellate authority by filing a revision before the 1^st respondent. The revision came to be dismissed on 15.11.2007 vide G.O.Ms.No.125 Social Welfare LTR.2 Department. Hence, this writ petition.

¶33

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Forests.

¶34

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the revisional authority failed to consider the implead petition filed by Gugulothu Roopla, a legal representative of Guguloth Veeru, and thereby the order passed by the revenue authority suffers from serious lacunae and the same is liable to be set aside. A further submission has been made that Guguloth Veeru died pending revision and the revision came to be disposed of without considering the application filed by the legal representative of Guguloth Veeru and that virtually revision came to be passed in favour of a dead person and therefore the revisional order is liable to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded back to the revisional authority for consideration afresh. He took me to the petitions moved by Guguloth Roopla before the revisional authority seeking his impleadment as one of the respondents in the revision petition. He also took me to the compromise petition stated to have been moved before the revisional authority.

¶35

7. Both the applications are not reflected in the order passed by the revisional authority. Therefore, a fact remains that the revision went in favour of a dead person. Since the LR application filed by Gugulothu Roopla was not considered by the revisional authority, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the revisional authority and remand the matter back to the revisional authority for consideration afresh after considering the implead petition filed by Guguloth Roopla claiming to be the LR of Guguloth Veeru.

¶36

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the order under revision and remanding the matter back to the revisional authority for consideration afresh after giving due opportunity to Guguloth Roopla who stated to have moved the application to bring on record as LR of Guguloth

¶37

Veeru. No costs. 7-7-2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}

¶38

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASYANA REDDY

¶39

WRIT PETITION NO.26115 OF 2007

¶40

7^th JULY 2008.

Ajmeera Raghavulu S/o Bheemla v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajmeera Raghavulu S/o Bheemla v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by

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

Nagapuri Komaraiah Vs The General Manager, Mandamarri Area

Master Medishetty Balakrishna Vs Tandur Municipal Corporation

Pothokatla Pacs Ltd., Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Mohd.Tayyab Vs The Secretary, State Board of Technical Education and

Smt.Leelavathi Heda, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

M/s.Visakha Sc, St Scavengers Sweepers and Substute Vs The Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation