Allowed

Polgani Rama Mohana Rao, v. the Distirict Collecter

Telangana HC1 Jul 2009WP/8528/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against revenue authorities regarding disputed land title involving ancestral property claims versus political sufferer patta. Court declined merits review and directed enquiry. Dismissal rejected pending enquiry.

What did the court decide?

M.R.O. directed to conduct detailed enquiry into patta issuance and survey land, submitting report to District Collector within three months.

Polgani Rama Mohana Rao, Vs the Distirict… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 8528 of 2003

¶6

Between:

¶7

POLGANI RAMA MOHANA RAO, S/o RAMA LINGAM, R/o VUYYURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 THE DISTIRICT COLLECTER,

¶11

KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM.

¶12

2 THE MANDL REVENUE OFFICER,VYYURUR,

¶13

KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶14

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND SETTLEMENTS,

¶15

KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶16

4 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PANCHAYATH, VYYURUR, MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶17

5 DENDAMUDI SAILASRI, W/o VENKAT KRISHNA KISHORE BABU, R/o 1-308, VETERNARY HOSPITAL ROAD, VUYYRUR, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶18

6 SMT.IKKURTHI SUSMITHA, W/o VENKATA KIRAN KUMAR, R/o 1-351, VETERINARY HOSPITAL ROAD, VUYYURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶19

(RR 5 & 6 are impleaded as per Court Order dt.27/08/2004 in WPMP 14976/2004)

¶20

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶21

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 pleases to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 to 3 to demarcation of the boundaries of the lands in R.S.No.1056/2 (old Survey No.336) of Ac.0.31 cents and in Survey No.583/3 of Ac.0.13 cents and fix the stones situated in Vuyyur Village, Krishna District and consequently direct the 4th Respondent not to dig the drainage and in the petitioners site Ac.0.31 cents in R.S.No.1056/2 old Survey No.336) situated at Vuyyuru, Krishna District

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.MADHAVI KAMBHAMPATI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: MR.R.V.SUBBA RAO

¶24

The Court made the following :

¶25

O R D E R :

¶26

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a Mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to demarcate the boundaries and to fix the boundary stones of the lands in R.S No.1056/2 (old survey No.336) of Ac.0-31 cents and in Survey No.583/3 of Ac.0-13 cents situated in Vuyyuru village, Krishna District and consequently direct respondent No.4 not to dig the drainage canal in the petitioner’s site of Ac.0-31 cents in R.S. No.1056/2 (old Survey No.336) situated at Vuyyuru, Krishna District.

¶27

According to the petitioner, his father was native of Vuyyuru, Krishna District and a freedom fighter. The Government allotted site to an extent of Ac.0-13 cents in R.S. No.503/3 in Survey No.583/3 situated at Vuyyuru, Krishna District, under the claim of political sufferer, vide proceedings of Tahsildar, Vuyyuru in Rc.No.B2/1349/7, dated 09.10.1969. The grand mother of the petitioner owns the site in R.S. No.1056/2 of Ac.0-31 cents situated at Vuyyuru as the same was inherited by her from her mother, who purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing No.201/2-8 in the year 1913. When the revenue officials tried to occupy the property stating that the said property is a Government land, his father filed suit in O.S. No.286 of 1974 on the file of District Munsif, Gannavaram, Krishna District for declaration of title and consequential injunction, against the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by District Collector, Krishna District and the Tahsildar, Gannavaram. The suit was decreed on 30.03.1979 against the Government. It was held in the said judgment that the settlement records neither confer nor extinguish title and if the plaintiff has title otherwise to the property, the Record of Rights cannot affect such title.

¶28

According to the petitioner, he is working as an Engineer and transferred from one place to another. After the death of his father in the year 1982, his brother and himself became owners of the said property and came to know that there were some encroachments over the property.

¶29

Therefore, he made representation to the concerned authorities on 15.08.1997, 16.09.1997 and sought for demarcation of the boundaries of the lands in R.S. No.1056/2 (old survey No.336) of Ac.0-31 cents and in Survey No.583/3 of Ac.0-13 cents situated in Vuyyuru village. In spite of the said representation, the authorities did not respond and demarcate the lands. Against their inaction, the petitioner filed earlier W.P. No.32239 of 198 before this Court and the same was disposed of at the admission stage on 24.12.1998 with a direction to the respondents to consider the said representations for demarcation of the boundaries, in accordance with law, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶30

According to the petitioner, after receiving the said order copy, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records Department inspected and surveyed R.S. No.1056 of Vuyyuru village on 31.07.2001 and submitted his report to District Collector on 20.08.2001. In that report he mentioned that the R.S. No.1056/2 in an extent of Ac.0-31 cents was assigned to a political sufferer, namely, P.Rama Lingam, the father of Polagani Rama Mohana Rao. According to the measurement book of S.No.1056 Sub/division Nos.1, 2, 3 are classified as grama kantham poramboke and it is a vacant site. As the site is vacant, it might have been assigned to the political sufferers. The Assistant Director has further stated that the Government is responsible to show the site of Ac.0-31 cents, which was mentioned in the patta, in favour of the son of political sufferer and he directed that orders may be passed to hand over an extent of Ac.0-31 cents in Sub Division No.2 of R.S. No.1056/2. It is the case of the petitioner that Ac.0.31 cents of land was not assigned to his father under the scheme of political sufferer but it was his ancestral property, for which a civil suit against the Government was also decreed. The petitioner has submitted representation to the District Collector, Krishna to direct the Survey and Settlement Department to fix up boundary stones to Ac0.31 cents and Ac.0.13 cents situated at Vuyyuru village, but no action has been taken on the said representation. Even after receiving report from

¶31

Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, the 4^th respondent – Executive Officer of Gram Panchayat Vuyyuru is proclaiming that the site in R.S. No. 1056/2 to an extent of Ac.0.31 cents belongs to the Government and he is making efforts to dig drainage canal in the site, without having any right over the said property. Hence, this writ petition.

¶32

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by 4^th respondent. It is stated that the land in R.S. No. 1056/2 totalling Ac.2-27 cents is a Gramkantam land as per the revenue records and vests in the Gram Panchayat as contemplated under the provisions of the Panchayatraj Act. The subject land is covered by an existing road used for public purpose. The petitioner is claiming title over the Gramkantam land on the strength of a judgment and decree passed in civil suit, wherein the Gram Panchayat was not a party and the said judgment has no binding effect on the Gram Panchayat. It is absolutely incorrect to say that the site admeasuring Ac.0.31 cents in R.S. No. 1056/2 is an ancestral property of the petitioner. It is absolutely incorrect to say that patta was given, in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.0.31 cents, in favour of his father under the scheme of political sufferers. There is no proof to establish the fact of issuance of alleged patta in the name of his father. Even if a patta is to be granted by the Government to a political sufferer, before issuing such a patta, a notification under Section 80(1) has to be issued by the Government, but no such notification was issued and no patta was granted as alleged. The Gram Panchayat is no way concerned with the alleged grant of patta and and regularization of the patta land. Further, there is an existing road in R.S. No.1056/2 which includes the subject land of Ac.0.31 cents and since the petitioner was causing obstruction to the road, some villagers filed O.S. 134 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada for permanent injunction and the same was decreed against the petitioner and the same is still subsisting. Hence, the writ petition is liable to dismissed.

¶33

Heard both sides. In the facts and circumstances of the

¶34

case, since the very patta granted in favour of the father of the petitioner as a political sufferer is in dispute, without going into the merits of the case, the M.R.O. is directed to conduct a detailed enquiry into the matter, including the aspect as to issuance of assignment of patta in favour of father of the petitioner as a political sufferer, and survey the land in question with the help of the concerned Surveyor and submit report to the District Collector within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,. On receipt of the said report, the District Collector shall take appropriate decision, as per law.

¶35

The writ petition is accordingly allowed with the above directions. No order as to costs.

¶36

JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU.

¶37

Date: 1-7-2009. KSH/MVB.

Polgani Rama Mohana Rao, v. the Distirict Collecter

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Polgani Rama Mohana Rao, v. the Distirict Collecter

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

M. Pratap Reddy Vs The District of Mines and Geology

Pudari Shanker, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Kalpana Raja Rao, Vs The Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary

B.Rajeswara Rao, Vs a.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

G.Sreenivasulu Raghavaiah Vs The Special Collector

Chodapalli Gram Panchayat, rep by its Sarpanch, Vs The Panchayat Development Officer