Disposed

Siyadri Bodaappaiahgari Appa Rao v. The Government of a.P., Rep. by its Principal

Telangana HC3 Feb 2011WP/24991/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a landless poor Scheduled Caste member, challenged his dispossession from allotted land. The Court noted interim relief granted in 2007. Since the subject land was taken over by government, the petitioner was directed to make a representation for alternative land allotment within four weeks for the Revenue Officer to consider within two months, and the petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make representation for alternative land allotment to Mandal Revenue Officer within four weeks; Authority directed to consider request within two months.

Siyadri Bodaappaiahgari Appa Rao Vs The… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.24991 OF 2007

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner,

¶5

Siyadri Bodaappaiahgari Appa Rao, seeking Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in resorting to destruction of crop, removing trees and other acts as part of process of dispossessing him and his family from the land in Survey No.151/2P4 of Kommadi Village, Visakha Rural Mandal as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to remove the fencing put up by them around the subject land.

¶6

2. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Schedule Caste and landless poor. He made representations to the Government about 25 years back for allottment of land for eking out his livelihood and the then Tahsildar had allotted Ac.1-00 of land as “Atukubadi” in Kommadi village vide proceedings No.2289/82 specifying the land for cultivation alone and not for alienable. From then, himself and his family have been cultivating that land by raising different crops and growing trees etc., and eking out their livelihood thereon. While so, on 20-11-2007 at

¶7

10-30 AM, the officials of respondent No.3 came to the subject land, put up fencing around the land, removed trees and huts in the land by a proclainer, destroyed the groundnut crop and dispossessed him and his family from the land without issuing any notice or following the due process of law. Hence, this writ petition.

¶8

3. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 stating that as per the revenue record, the Kommadi Village in Visakhapatnam

¶9

(Rural) Mandal was taken over under the provisions of E.A. Act, 1948 along with the other villages of Vizianagaram Estate. After abolition of the estate, regular survey and settlement operations were conducted and they were completed before 1958. The Settlement Fair Adangal is one of the pivotal documents of the settlement records as it is a document of title showing the individual ownership rights as determined and settled under the administrative law. It is recognized as such for all practical purposes in all the settled estate villages of the kind.

¶10

The Settlement Fair Adangal constitutes permanent basic record of the village level to show or to establish individual ownership right in respect of any holding and also of Government. Thus, as per the revenue record, the land in Survey No.151/2 of Kommadi Village in Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal is Ac.1-17 cents and classified as Gayalu (AWD) and recorded as such in the Settlement Fair Adangal. Since it is a Government land, it was assigned to one Smt. Nagothi Atchayamma vide D.R. No.175/71 and the assignee’s name has also been incorporated in the Settlement Fair Adangal and also 10(1) Register of Kommadi Village vide patta No.349. But, provisional assignment of the land in

¶11

“Survey No.151/2” was never made to the petitioner and that “Survey No.151/2P4,” as claimed by the petitioner, does not exist and the documents filed by the petitioner are false. It is also stated that the Government land admeasuring Acs.41-46 cents covered by Survey Nos.137/4, 137/7, 137/8, 119 P, 135/5, 136/2, 136, 4, 5, 6 and 153/2 & 3 has been handed over to A.P. State Housing Corporation for construction of houses under JNNURM Scheme and subsequently it has been transferred to Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation as the construction of houses under JNNURM Scheme was taken up by the Corporation. Hence, the authorities of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation have taken up works in the lands handed over

¶12

to them for construction of houses to weaker sections under JNNURM scheme but not in Survey No.151/2 of Kommadi Village. Thus, the petitioner has no right or title whatsoever over the subject land, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

4. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

¶14

5. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 23-11-2007, granted interim order restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner and resorting to dispossessing him and his family from the subject land.

¶15

6. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the contentions of the respondents that the documents submitted by the petitioner are not genuine and he is not a genuine allottee of the subject land are false and the same cannot be accepted as he was in possession of the same for a substantial period till his dispossession recently by the respondents. He also submits that as the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, he is entitled to allottment of alternative land even if the subject land is taken over by the respondent authorities because patta was granted in his favour earlier for the subject land as “Atukubadi” and taking into consideration of his possession over the land and cultivation of the same by him and his family members for a substantial period, he may be allotted alternative land.

¶16

7. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the subject land was already taken over by the Government and he reports that there is no objection to consider the request of the petitioner for allottment of any other land, if he is eligible for the same.

¶17

8. In view of the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the subject land was already taken over by the authorities concerned and the same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing remains in this writ petition for adjudication.

¶18

8. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the petitioner must make a representation to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal for allottment of land within a period of four (4) weeks from today and on receipt of such representation, the Mandal Revenue Officer is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for allottment of any land in accordance with law within a period of two (2) months thereafter.

¶19

9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶20

______________ N.V. RAMANA, J

¶21

February 3, 2011. PV

Siyadri Bodaappaiahgari Appa Rao v. The Government of a.P., Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siyadri Bodaappaiahgari Appa Rao v. The Government of a.P., Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Praveen Kumar Goud Vs Y.Harigopal

T. Prakash, Vs Shivalal Gouli

Danagri Ramchander Vs M/S Narne Estates Pvt. Limited

Sargari Mahipal Reddy, Vs Unni Venkataiah

Kurma Padma, Vs The Joint Collector

P. Yerikalamma S/o nagaiah Vs The sub-Registrar (stamps and Registration)