This judgment dismissed an Article 226 writ petition challenging an order by the Upa Lokayukta. The High Court held that the petitioner's complaint regarding land rectification was barred by the six-year limitation period under Section 8(2) of the A.P. Lokayukta Act, 1983.
No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.6014 OF 2012
Dated 6-3-2012
Between:
K.Ravinder Rao.
Petitioner.
And:
The Upa Lokayukta, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, represented by its Registrar and others.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.6014 OF 2012
ORDER: (Per Honourable Sri Justice G.Krishna Mohan Reddy)
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring order dated 6-7-2011 in complaint No.173/2008/B2 on the file of Upa-Lokayukta, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of A.P.Lokayukta Act, 1983 and consequently, set aside the order directing the respondents to make necessary rectification in relevant Revenue Records.
The writ petitioner filed a complaint against the Tahsildar, Venkatapuram Mandal, Warangal District with the following averments or allegations.
He and his coparceners are the absolute owners of Ac.49.24 cents of land in S.No.359/1 of Lakshmidevpet, Venkatapur Mandal having succeeded to that land from their grandfather (late K.Gopal Rao) who got it from the Government vide orders in R.M.CROFTON, D.G. & R.S., dated 13-2-1947 Fasli and G.O.Ms.No.1434, dated 27-6-
1958 issued by the Agriculture Department. The respondents 1 and 2- The Tahsildar, Venkatapuram Mandal, Warangal District and Md.Rajak, Village Revenue Officer, Lakshmidevi Village, Venkatapur Mandal, Warangal District in collusion with some 3rd parties, who bribed them, recorded the names of those 3rd parties as pattadars of the said land in the relevant revenue records. Having come to know that he (the complainant) approached the respondent No.1 and made an application for the rectification of relevant pahanies and issuance of necessary patta pass books in their favour. He also filed applications dated 5-12-2007 and 3-12-2007 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulug and District Collector, Warangal, to give necessary directions to the respondents 1 and 2 for the rectification of pahanies but it was in vain.
On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has been continuing his illegal acts confirming the entries made in the name of unauthorized persons in the revenue records for the complainant’s land and is also attempting to pay compensation amount to the unauthorized persons for the land under land acquisition proceedings. Ultimately, he approached the Lokayukta seeking to enquire into the matter and issue necessary directions to the respondents. Further on the directions of Upa Lokayukta, the District Collector, Warangal submitted a report dated 19-7-2008 claiming that the Government land is at the corner of S.No.359 and further claiming that the complainant got no right or title over the property and also he was never in the possession of the property. Remarks of the complaint were also called supplying a copy of the report of the District Collector for which the complainant gave reply affirming his claim. In pursuance of the reply given by the complainant, the District Collector submitted his second report affirming the stand taken by him earlier. Thereupon, the Deputy Director, (Legal) was asked to submit his brief note in the matter and accordingly, he submitted a letter dated 3-12-2007 to the District Collector that the complainant’s grand father Gopala Rao got
the land under G.O.Ms.No.1434, dated 27-6-1958 and subsequently, patta was issued in favour of the complainant’s brother late Sri K.Chandrasekhararao who died in the year 1985 and the complainant gave application to the District Collector dated 3-12-2007 to issue patta pass book for the land in his favour cancelling patta pass book if any issued in favour of any other person. The Upa Lokayukta dismissed the complaint observing for the reasons noted therein that the claim was bared by limitation under Section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983 (for short “the Act”).
The petitioner contends that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to initiate appropriate steps for the rectification of records and the District Collector without proper verification of the records gave his report that he (petitioner) got no right and only the Government got rights over the property and the Deputy Director (Legal) also submitted incorrect report to the Upa lokayukta and the Upa Lokayukta on improper consideration of the material available, dismissed the complaint and hence, the order impugned is to be set aside and necessary directions are to be given. It is asserted by him that since then, no pass books have been given in favour of him or any of his family members in respect of the lands.
Therefore, it has to be examined as to
(a) Whether there are grounds for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
(2) Whether the order passed by the Upa Lokayukta is tenable or not.
It is pertinent that as per the report submitted by the District Collector, the petitioner got no rights over the land. Further, absolutely, there is no basis to say that the petitioner made any claim after the death of his brother K.Chandrasekhar Rao, in the year, 1985, till filing the complaint before the District Collector, Warangal in respect of the property. There is no available record with regards to his possession of the property also.
Section 8(2) of the Act reads as follows:
“The Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta shall not investigate a complaint involving an allegation, if the complaint is made after the expiry of six years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place.”
Thereby, the petitioner should have made a claim for the land within six years of arising of the cause of action. In the circumstances enumerated, the cause of action to do so, can be to said to have arisen following the death of his brother in the year 1985. In that view of the matter, the claim made by him is barred by limitation.
Eventually, this writ petition is not maintainable and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
______________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
______________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J)
Dated 6-3-2012 Dvs
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.6014 OF 2012
(Per Honourable Sri Justice G.Krishna Mohan Reddy) Dated 6-3-2012
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there are grounds for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the order passed by the Upa Lokayukta barring the complaint under Section 8(2) of the Act is tenable.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.Ravinder Rao
The Upa Lokayukta
V.V.S. RAO
G. Krishna Mohan Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
