Allowed

T.Venkatramana v. The District Collector

Telangana HC4 Mar 2009WP/18723/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner, who purchased land and obtained a civil decree title, was not entitled to penalty. The respondents were directed to pass orders regarding the petitioner's lawful possession claim in pursuance of pending settlement orders, considering the suspension of a conflicting patta and the total circumstances, within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders recognizing the petitioner's lawful possession and implement the claim taking into consideration the suspension of the conflicting DKT patta, within

T.Venkatramana Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 18723 of 2001

¶4

Between:

¶5

T.Venkatramana S/o T.Gurrappa R/o Peddapanjani Satram Village & Post, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District

¶6

..... PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

1 The District Collector, Chittoor,

¶9

2 The Mandal Revenue Officer,

¶10

Peddapanjani Mandal Office, Peddapanjani Mandal Chittoor District.

¶11

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶12

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 to issue any writ or order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondeents to implement the orders of he Settlement Officer, Chittoor passed in S.R.No. 1999/11(a)/63/PGN(Press Note), dt: 21-10-1963 in respect of S.No. 47/10B covering an extent of Ac.0-11 cts. in Peddapanjani Revenue Village and Mandal, Chittoor District and consequently mutate the same in the name of Writ Petition

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.S.GOPALA KRISHNAN

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶15

The Court made the following :

¶16

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSKM}

¶17

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶18

W.P.No.18723 of 2001

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to implement the orders of the Settlement Officer, Chittoor, passed in S.R.No.199/11(a)/63/PGN (Press Note), dated 21-10-1963, in respect of Sy.No.47/10-B, covering an extent of Ac.0.11 cents in Peddapanjani Revenue Village and Mandal, Chittoor District and consequently mutate the said land in the name of the petitioner.

¶21

2. The brief facts of the case are that:

¶22

a) The petitioner and his wife have purchased an extent of Ac.0.11 cents an extent of Ac.1.08 cents, respectively, in Sy.No.47/10 covering total extent of Ac.1.19 cents of wet land from the Settlement Patta holder, under two registered sale deeds, dated 31-03-1989 and 27-03-1993, having been sub divided as Sy.Nos.47-10-B and 47/10-A, respectively, since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

¶23

b) While so, the 2^nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer has implemented the orders of mutation in respect of the property standing in the name of his wife, but so far as the land, purchased in favour of the petitioner, is concerned, he illegally classified it as waste land and issued eviction notice to the petitioner. Against which, he filed O.S.No.93/1993 seeking permanent injunction, against third parties, who are raising dispute to his purchased property, and O.S.No.179 of 1993 against the respondents seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction, in respect of his purchase covering an extent of Ac.0.11 cents in Sy.No.47/10-B. Both the suits were decreed in his favour by a common judgment dated 08-09-1997 by the Principal District Munsif, Punganur.

¶24

c) Thereupon, he filed an application before the 1^st respondent to implement the orders of Settlement Officer dated 21-10-1963 and

¶25

mutate the said land in his name. The 1^st respondent issued proceedings to the 2^nd respondent to implement the said orders. Since the 2^nd respondent failed to implement the orders of the Settlement Officer as directed by the 1^st respondent, the present writ petition has been fled.

¶26

3. To resist the claim of the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that with regard to the land in Sy.No.47/10-B to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents, said to have been purchased by the petitioner, as per the revenue record, its total extent is Ac.0.41 cents. Out of which, one Indukuri Venkata Chalapathi Chetty encroached Ac.0.05 cents and one Venkatappa encroached Ac.0.36 cents. The land under the possession of Venkatappa was registered as assessed waste wet and the same was under the possession and enjoyment of landless poor, and later the said land was granted patta under DKT Rules in favour of Venkatappa. It is further stated that so far as Ac.0.05 cents of land, said to have been purchased by the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 27-03-1993, it was encroached by Chalapathi Chetty and hence, the same was not considered for grant of DKT Patta as it bears incorrect information regarding survey number and extent. Therefore, the petitioner was not granted any rytwari patta or DKT patta, by any authority, and no such orders are pending implementation in the revenue records. However, the burden lies with him to prove his possession over the land in question. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

4. The petitioner contends that the land in question was purchased by him under a registered sale deed and the same is in his possession and enjoyment. Hence, he is entitled for grant of DKT Patta.

¶28

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for

¶29

Revenue contends that the said piece of land is classified as Government assessed waste wet and it is vested to the Government and the extent of land, as mentioned in the said survey number, is tallying with the survey number, claimed by the petitioner and it also appears that the DKT patta i.e. granted in favour of the assignee viz., Venkatappa, has also been suspended, pending finalization of the case. The petitioner was not granted any rytwari patta or DKT patta by any authority and no such orders are pending and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to grant DKT patta in his favour.

¶30

6. As seen from the material papers, the Court of Principal District Munsif, Punganur, passed a decree in O.S.No.179 of 1993 in favour of the petitioner in respect of in respect of his purchase covering an extent of Ac.0.11 cents in Sircar Wet Sy.No.47/10-B. Further it is also evident from the record that by order dated 24-112000, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddapanjani, was directed to implement the orders of the Joint Collector, Chittoor, regarding suspension of DKT patta, granted by the MRO, to one Venkatappa in Sy.No.47/10 of Peddapanjani Satram village, until disposal of the case, pertaining to the implementation of the orders of the Settlement Officer, Nellore.

¶31

7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the finalization of the proceedings, in respect of DKT patta said to have been issued in favour of the assignees, who are the landless poor persons, is not clear from the counter-affidavit filed by the Government. Except contending that neither the vendor of the petitioner nor the petitioner has any right over the land in question and that it was classified as a Government waste wet, there is no any other material to prove the contention of the respondents. Further, the competent Civil Court i.e. Principal District Munsif’s Court, Punganur, decreed the suits in O.S.Nos.93 and 179 of 1993, dated 08-09-1997, for permanent injunction and for declaration of title. Pending the

¶32

finalization of the case, the D.K.T. patta granted to Venkatappa was suspended by the Joint Collector, Chittoor.

¶33

8. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents are directed to pass the appropriate orders, with regard to the claim of the petitioner that he has been in lawful possession of the land in Sy.Nos.47/10B, to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents in Punganuru village and Mandal, Chittoor District, in pursuance of the orders dated 21-10-1983, by the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and communicate the same to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶34

9. With the aforementioned direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶35

______________________ 4^th March 2009

¶36

KVR

T.Venkatramana v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Venkatramana v. The District Collector

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

S.Govardhanagiri Yadav, S/o.Pakeeranna Vs The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bethamcherla Branch

Boyapati Sleeva Reddy, Vs M/s. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Kothagudem Branch

Smt.Basheerunnisa Begum and 6 Others Vs Muncipal Commissioner Hyd and Another

Shaik Kalesha Saheb, Vs The Dist.Collector

The LIC Employees Co.op.Housing Society Ltd., Vs Union of India

D.Eshwara Chandra Rao, Vs Commissioner of Survay