Dismissing a writ petition challenging regularisation proceedings for land acquisition, the Court held that disputes regarding the subdivision and private nature of the land must be adjudicated by a civil court.
Writ Petition dismissed; petitioners directed to file a civil suit for resolution of the dispute.
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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.28150 of 2012
Date : 2-9-2013
Between: V. Vara Prasada Raju and another .. Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Assignments) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents
Counsel for petitioners : Sri K. Durga Prasad Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri Vedula Venkataramana, Senior Counsel
The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside proceedings No.R2/5864/2008, dated 7-10-2009, and conveyance deed dated 14-10-2009 executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.4.
The brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are stated hereunder :
The petitioners claim to be the owners of an extent of Ac.9-20 gts. in Sy.No.74/10 of Marredpally village and Mandal, Secunderabad, Hyderabad District. The State Government filed a batch of land grabbing cases before the Special Court under the provisions of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, in respect of the lands in Sy.No.74. The said cases were disposed of by the Special Court by its Judgment dated 18-3-2010 holding that Sy.No.74 was sub-divided as Sy.No.74/1 to 13; that except an extent of Ac.3-02 in Sy.No.74/1, all other lands are private lands and that the said extent of Ac.3-02 gts. alone in Sy.No.74/1 is the Government land. Respondent No.4 has approached respondent Nos.1 to 3 with an application
for regularisation of her occupation of 320 sq. yards of land in Sy.No.74, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.166, Revenue (Assignment-Prohibition of Transfers) Department, dated 16-2-2008. Considering the said application, respondent No.2 has issued proceedings No.R2/5864/2008, dated 7-10-2009 regularising the said extent of 320 sq. yards in premises No.10-3-36, Addagutta, falling in Sy.No.74, T.S.No.2/1, Block-Entire, Ward No.130 of Marredpally (Paigah) village of Marredpally Mandal. Consequent on the said regularisation, a conveyance deed was executed and registered by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.4 on 14-10-2009. In the present Writ Petition, the plea of the petitioners is that in the impugned proceedings issued in favour of respondent No.4, the subdivision of Sy.No.74 has not been mentioned and that on the basis of the said regularisation proceedings and the conveyance deed, respondent No.4 is claiming a part of the land out of Ac.9-20 gts. belonging to the petitioners.
Respondent No.4 filed a counter affidavit wherein she has supported the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 in her favour by stating that she has satisfied the requirements of G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16-2-2008 and therefore respondent No.2 has rightly regularised her possession of premises bearing No.10-3-36, which is situated over the Government land.
From the respective pleadings of the parties, it is
evident that the main dispute is as to whether the premises regularised in favour of respondent No.4 fall in Sy.No.74/1, which is a Government land, or in any other sub-divisions, which are held to be private lands by the Special Court. In my opinion, this issue needs to be resolved only by a civil court of competent jurisdiction in a properly constituted suit as the adjudication of such a dispute requires evidence to be adduced by both the parties and therefore the present Writ Petition is not the proper remedy. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving the petitioners free to avail the remedy of a civil suit for resolution of the dispute raised by them.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order 10-9-2012 in WPMP No.35871/2012 is vacated and WPMP No.31251/2013 and WVMP No.3579/2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 2-9-2013 AM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present Writ Petition is the proper remedy to adjudicate the dispute over the subdivision of land and ownership between petitioners and respondent No.4.
V. Vara Prasada Raju
Government of Andhra Pradesh
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.4
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
