Allowed

B.Poornachandra Reddy v. TheDistrict Collector ANDMagistrate

Telangana HC1 Nov 2013WP/12661/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the District Collector's interference with his possession of land. The court held that the petitioner has a subsisting interest based on the grandfather's claim and village account entries. It restrained the Collector from evicting the petitioner unless lawful proceedings are initiated.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 restrained from interfering with the petitioner's possession unless appropriate eviction proceedings are initiated.

B.Poornachandra Reddy Vs TheDistrict Collector… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

W.P.No.12661 of 2011

¶3

Date : 1-11-2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

B. Poornachandra Reddy .. Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The District Collector & Magistrate, Chittoor District, at Chittoor and others .. Respondents

¶8

Counsel for petitioner : Sri Kurra Srinivas Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Assistant Government Pleader

¶9

for Revenue

¶10

Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 32 : Sri A. Panduranga Rao

¶11

for Sri Srinivas Dammalapati

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that respondent No.2 has been interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the land admeasuring Ac.0-83 cents in Sy.No.1/1 of C. Ramapuram village, R.C. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District, without following due process of law.

¶15

The petitioner pleaded that the claim made by his grand father under Section 11(a) of the A.P. Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948 was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor (ASO) in proceedings S.R.86/11(a)/64 PTR, dated 25-4-1964. The petitioner has further pleaded that his grand father has died in the year 2005; that thereafter he succeeded to the property; and that respondent No.2 has issued pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour vide PPB No.413 and No.291281. The petitioner further pleaded that the Village Account No.3 shows his name as the “Enjoyer and Pattadar”. That when the petitioner intended to transfer the above mentioned land for family needs, respondent No.2 has issued No Objection Certificate (NOC) on 25-7-2007; that some of the villagers have instigated respondent No.2 to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the said land

¶16

and that accordingly respondent No.2 came to the land with his staff on 28-3-2011 and directed the petitioner to vacate the said land. This action of respondent No.2 is questioned in this Writ Petition.

¶17

On 28-4-2011, this Court, in WPMP No.15420/2011 directed the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the subject land.

¶18

In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that if the ASO has allowed the claim of the petitioner’s grand father, the petitioner ought to have obtained a ryotwari patta and the fact remains that no ryotwari patta has been granted. As regards the claim of the petitioner that pattadar passbook and title deed were issued, it is stated that 1-B Register does not contain the entries with respect to the same and that no file is available with respect to the purported NOC dated 25-7-2007. Respondent No.2 has denied the allegation that the subject land is needed by him for construction of a temple and that he has gone to the land on 28-3-2011 and 11-11-2011 and directed the petitioner to vacate the same. Respondent No.2 has maintained that the land in question is a Government land classified as “Ralla Gunta”.

¶19

Respondent Nos.3 to 32 who are residents of Kodandaramapuram village, came on record and they have also sought for vacation of the interim order granted by this

¶20

Court.

¶21

From the averments contained in the counter affidavit of respondent No.2, it is evident that he is not seriously disputing the proceedings of the ASO allowing the claim of the petitioner’s grand father under Section 11(a) of the Act. So long as the said proceeding remains in force, it cannot be said that the petitioner who claimed to have succeeded to his grand father, has no subsisting interest over the property. The grant of ryotwari patta being a ministerial act, mere non grant of such patta would not divest the interest of the petitioner in the property. At any rate, respondent No.2 has denied his interference with the petitioner’s possession of the property.

¶22

As regards respondent Nos.3 to 32, they have no right whatsoever over subject land. Unless the petitioner is evicted by the official respondents by following due process of law, respondent Nos.3 to 32, cannot, in any manner claim interest over the land in question.

¶23

For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are restrained from interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the property unless appropriate proceedings are initiated for his eviction from the subject land. If such proceedings are initiated, the petitioner shall be entitled to resist the same and assert his right over the property.

¶24

As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WVMP

¶25

No.3202/2011 and 1407/2012 are disposed of as infructuous.

¶26

Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 1-11-2013

¶27

B.Poornachandra Reddy v. TheDistrict Collector ANDMagistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Poornachandra Reddy v. TheDistrict Collector ANDMagistrate

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

Sri Samdurala Venu Gopal Rao, Vs The Govt., of A.P.

Sanjeevarayudu Boya S/o.Naganna, Vs The Assistant Project Director Dwama Kurnool

Sri Bobbara Sundara Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Chava Srirami Reddy Vs The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate

Rapolu Venugopal Rao, S/o. Venkatarajaiah Vs The State of A.P.

Qazi Mohammed Ahsan Uzzaman Qureshi, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh