Dismissed

Boya Lachamma v. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

Telangana HC5 Sept 2012WA/974/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court common judgment dismissed two writ appeals challenging an order by the Single Judge, which upheld the Commissioner of Appeals' decision to remit the land regularization matter to the Joint Collector for a de novo enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals are dismissed. The order of the Single Judge is confirmed. The Joint Collector is directed to dispose of the matter by 31.12.2012.

Boya Lachamma Vs The Chief Commissioner of Land… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶3

WRIT APPEAL NOs.597 OF 2011 AND 974 OF 2012

¶4

DATED:5.9.2012

¶5

W.A. NO.597 OF 2011 Between: G.C. Somi Reddy and another … Appellants

¶6

And

¶7

The Commissioner of Appeals O/o. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Andhra Pradesh, Nampally Station Road Hyderabad and others … Respondents

¶8

W.A. NO.974 OF 2012

¶9

Between: Boya Lachamma and others … Appellants

¶10

And

¶11

The Commissioner of Appeals O/o. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Andhra Pradesh, Nampally Station Road Hyderabad and others … Respondents

¶12

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶13

WRIT APPEAL NOs.597 OF 2011 AND 974 OF 2012

¶14

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶15

These writ appeals are directed against the common order dt.22.7.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in Writ Petition Nos.25153 and 22855 of 2008 respectively.

¶16

As both the writ appeals arise out of a common order, these writ appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that the appellants – petitioners along with some others, in total 18 persons, are statedly in possession of government poramboke land to the extent of Ac.1.68 cents in Sy. No.137 of Gudipadu Village, Gudur Mandal, Kurnool District, since long. When the revenue authorities initiated action for eviction of the encroachers of the land and issued notices to 26 encroachers -- including the writ petitioners and respondent No.6 -- they along with seven others, in total 33 persons, filed a suit in O.S. No.414 of 1976 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Kurnool, seeking declaration of title and injunction. The said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiffs therein, with liberty to file a fresh suit. Later, another suit in O.S.No.289 of 1982 was filed on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Kurnool, in representative capacity, by two persons, namely Boya Naganna, and P. Thimma Reddy (petitioner No.4 in W.P. No.22855 of 2008/appellant No.4 in W.A. No.974 of 2011) on their behalf and on behalf of sixteen others, for declaration of title in respect of the land,

¶18

claiming adverse possession. Respondent No.6 is not a party to the said suit. The said suit was decreed by a judgment dt.26.3.1987, holding that the plaintiffs therein are entitled for declaration of title in respect of the land covered by Sy. No.137 to the extent of their possession, and consequently granted an order injunction.

¶19

Basing on the said judgment and decree in O.S. No.289 of 1982, dt.26.3.1987, the plaintiffs therein approached respondent No.3 - Joint Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Kurnool, seeking regularization of the encroachments. The Joint Collector called for reports from the concerned revenue officials and, after considering the reports of the revenue officials and the judgment passed in O.S. No.289 of 1982, dt.26.3.1987, by order dt.13.12.2006 the Joint Collector directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gudur, to regularize the land - an extent of Ac.0.46 cents on free of cost and the remaining extent of Ac.1.15 cents by collecting market value. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.6, who claims to be in possession of Ac.0.09 cents of land and also claiming right to another extent of Ac.0.09 cents, being successor of his uncle (who is also not a party to the suit which was decreed), filed an appeal before respondent No.1, the Commissioner of Appeals, inter alia contending that the Joint Collector wrongly ordered for regularization of the land without ascertaining the exact extents of land and number of encroachments, and without properly verifying the revenue records. Respondent No.1 – Commissioner of Appeals, by his order dt.26.9.2008 in Proceedings No.BCW5/46/08, disposed of the appeal, setting aside the order passed by the Joint Collector, Kurnool, dt.13.12.2006 and remitting the matter to the Joint Collector for conducting de novo enquiry and survey of the land after giving a reasonable opportunity to respondent No.6 and all interested persons, and to take a decision as per Rules.

¶20

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of respondent No.1, Commissioner of Appeals, dt.26.9.2008, the appellants – petitioners filed the writ petitions for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the

¶21

records from respondent No.1 in Proceedings No.BCW5/46/08, dt.26.9.2008 and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary, and for consequential directions.

¶22

The Hon’ble Single Judge in the impugned order observed that in view of the discrepancies in the extents of land held by the claimants and the in the absence of any finding in the suit in O.S. No.289 of 1982 with regard to the extents held by the individual encroachers, it cannot be said that the order of the Commissioner of Appeals is contrary to the findings recorded in the suit in O.S. NO.289 of 1982, and there is no illegality in the said order. His Lordship further held that since the Commissioner of Appeals remitted the matter to the Joint Collector, for fresh consideration, it is not necessary to interfere with the matter in question, and dismissed the writ petitions.

¶23

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge, dt.22.7.2011, the appellants – writ petitioners filed these writ appeals.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶25

Respondent No.1, Commissioner of Appeals, vide his order dt.26.9.2008 has set aside the order passed by the Joint Collector, dt.13.12.2006 and remitted the matter to him for conducting de novo enquiry and survey of the land, after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant (respondent No.6 herein) and all interested persons, and to take a decision as per Rules. Such being the position, the Hon’ble Single Judge having not found any illegality in the order of the Commissioner of Appeals, dismissed the writ petitions. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order so passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. In our opinion, in view of the order of the Commissioner of Appeals, all the parties will get a chance to ventilate their grievance before the Joint Collector.

¶26

We, therefore, confirm the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. We, however, direct respondent No.3 - Joint Collector,

¶27

Kurnool, to dispose of the matter in question on or before 31.12.2012, after giving notice to all the parties concerned.

¶28

The writ appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶29

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶30

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 5.9.2012 bnr

Boya Lachamma v. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boya Lachamma v. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

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

T.Venkataramana Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Prl.Secretary

Mohd. Khader, Vs The Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

Smt Sajida Begum Vs State Bank of India

G.G.Somi Reddy Vs The Commissioner Appeals

The District Collector, Vs Gorantla Butchi Naidu

M.Ramakrishna Vs The Commissioner and I.G.of Registration and