Disposed

Chenuboyina Venkateswarulu , Venkatesu, v. Tahsildar

Telangana HC9 Dec 2013WP/19681/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Tahsildar to conduct a survey to verify if the land in the petitioner's possession certificate matches the land subject to the encroachment notice, holding that eviction cannot proceed unless the certificate is first canceled for valid reasons if they are the same.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to complete a survey within two months and take appropriate steps; Writ Petition disposed, associated miscellaneous petitions held infructuous.

Chenuboyina Venkateswarulu , Venkatesu, Vs Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.19681 OF 2012

¶2

Dated 9 th December 2013

¶3

BETWEEN:

¶4

Chenuboyina Venkateswarulu @ Venkatesu.

¶5

…PETITIONER

¶6

AND

¶7

1. The Tahsildar, Prathipadu Village & Mandal, East Godavari District and one other.

¶8

…RESPONDENTS

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Govind Reddy

¶10

Counsel for respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

¶11

Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri N.Siva Reddy

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO.19681 OF 2012

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the notice dated 15.06.2012 issued under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (“the Act” for brevity), by respondent No.1.

¶17

The petitioner claims to be in possession of 72 square yards of land in Chinna Sankaralapudi Village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District. Respondent no.1 has issued the impugned notice under

¶18

Section 7 of the Act wherein it is alleged that the petitioner is in possession of Ac.0.03 cents of land in Survey No.99/3 of Chinna Sankaralapudi Village, which is considered as ‘Grama Kantham’ and accordingly, the petitioner was asked to show cause why he shall not be evicted. The petitioner pleaded that in pursuance of the Confirmation Certificate of handing over of residential plots admeasuring 72 square yards in Chinna Sankaralapudi Village by respondent No.1 vide his proceedings in Ref.No.5/2006 dated 29.04.2006, the petitioner is in possession of the property and that respondent No2, who is a busy body with a mala fide intention, prevailed upon respondent No.1 to evict him from the land in his possession. The petitioner further submitted that in pursuance of the above mentioned Certificate, he has applied for housing loan and that the A.P. Housing Corporation Limited, East Godavari District, has sanctioned housing loan and the petitioner has constructed a house with the said loan. In the light of these facts, the petitioner averred that the very initiation of proceedings under the Act is without jurisdiction as the petitioner is not in unauthorised possession of the Government land.

¶19

No counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1.

¶20

Respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit wherein he has, inter alia, stated that in the year 1978, the Government has considered the request of the villagers and acquired private land admeasuring Acs.7.17 cents in Survey Nos.88/1 & 2, 99/2 & 3 and 95/4 for providing house sites to the needy people belonging to the Backward Class (BC) community, that the Government identified 112 BC beneficiaries of the village, who are not having houses of their own and that due to legal complications, the extent of land was reduced from Acs.7.17 cents to Acs.4.67 cents and accordingly, the acquisition was confined to Survey Nos.99/2 & 3 and 95/4 and that the number of beneficiaries was also reduced from 112 to 91. Respondent No.2 further pleaded that the land was divided into plots admeasuring Ac.0.03 cents each

¶21

and that, out of the acquired lands, 75% was reserved for communal and road purposes and the remaining land was divided into 91 plots and pattas were granted to the eligible identified beneficiaries in the year 1981.

¶22

Respondent No.2 further averred that taking advantage of the existence of vacant land in the layout, some villagers have hatched a plan to grab the same and the petitioner is one among them, who has occupied an extent of Ac.0.06 cents in Survey No.99/3 in the year 2006-07 with the active support of the local political leaders and raised a pucca RCC building over Ac.0.03 cents leaving the remaining Ac.0.03 cents of land as backyard and that the petitioner has not obtained any permission from the Gram Panchayat for construction of the said building but he has obtained Assessment Number to the said building from the Gram Panchayat in the year 2007. That as in spite of the fact that all the villagers have staged a ‘dharna’ in the office of respondent No.1 for removal of encroachments made by the petitioner and some of the encroachers no action was taken by respondent No.1, the petitioner was forced to file a Writ Petition and that pursuance of the direction given therein, respondent No.1 has initiated the proceedings under the Act.

¶23

I have considered the respective pleadings of the parties and heard the learned counsel appearing for them.

¶24

The fact that the petitioner was given Possession Certificate remains undisputed in the absence of any counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1. However, as noted above, it is the pleaded case of the respondents that the petitioner has occupied the part of the land reserved for communal purposes in the layout prepared for the persons belonging to the BC community and that after a long struggle, respondent No.1 has initiated proceedings under the Act.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has pointed out that the purported Possession Certificate on which the petitioner is placing heavy reliance does not refer to the Survey Number. A perusal of the

¶26

said Certificate would, however, show that it has contained boundaries.

¶27

The pleadings of the parties as noted above would raise two issues namely (1) whether the land admeasuring 72 square yards referred to in the Possession Certificate is same as the land in Survey No.99/3 of Chinna Sankaralapudi Village in respect of which the impugned notice under Section 7 of the Act has been issued and (2) if the land mentioned in the Possession Certificate and the impugned notice is one and the same, whether respondent No.1 has jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice unless the Possession Certificate is cancelled.

¶28

The above two issues can be resolved only by conducting survey. If the survey reveals that the land claimed by the petitioner in the Possession Certificate is different from the one in respect of which the impugned notice is issued, respondent No.1 shall proceed further with the impugned notice. If, on the contrary, the petitioner is found in possession of the land covered by the Possession Certificate dated 29.04.2006, respondent No.1 cannot evict the petitioner unless proceedings are initiated for cancellation of the Possession Certificate and the Certificate is cancelled for valid reasons.

¶29

Respondent No.1 shall complete the survey and take appropriate steps in the light of the above directions within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶31

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 29.06.2012 stall stand vacated and WP.MP.No.25229 of 2012 and WV.MP.No.2924 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶32

_____________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶33

9^th December 2013 RRB

Chenuboyina Venkateswarulu , Venkatesu, v. Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chenuboyina Venkateswarulu , Venkatesu, v. Tahsildar

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

Lakavath Saidulu, s/o Lalu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Mareddy Venkateswara Reddy Vs Devarapalli Kondareddy

B. Ramakrishnamma Vs The District Collector and Magistrate

C. Narayana Swamy Reddy S/o. Late Krishna Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Prl.

M.Naveen Babu Vs The Tahsildar, Paloncha Mandal, Khammam District.

Smt. Kamala Bai Choudhary, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary