Allowed

P.R. Narasimha Reddy S/o Rami Reddy v. The Commissioner, Appeals, O/o the Chief Commissioner

Telangana HC20 Sept 2014WP/8309/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an impugned order refusing grant of patta. It held that a revision by a third-party stranger is not maintainable and the Revenue Officer erred in ignoring crucial evidence regarding the petitioner's right and possession before refusing the patta.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 29.12.2003 passed by the 1st Respondent is set aside. The miscellaneous petitions stand disposed of.

P.R. Narasimha Reddy S/o Rami Reddy Vs The Commissioner… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.8309 OF 2004

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

¶5

The writ petition is filed questioning the orders of the

¶6

1^st respondent, dated 29.12.2003, in upsetting the orders of the

¶7

2^nd respondent directing grant of patta in favour of the petitioner, being the legal representative of one P. Ramireddy, for the lands admeasuring Ac.0.14 cents, Ac.0.12 cents, Ac.0.17 cents and Ac.0.60 cents in Survey No.240/1 to 240/4, respectively, in Vedurukuppam Village and Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶8

The facts in brief are that the petitioner’s father, P. Ramireddy, was the estate pattadar under Patta No.113, Old Piyamaish No.304, for the land admeasuring Acs.4.80 cents situated at Vedurukuppam Village. The same is correlated to Survey No.240. In 1956, when there was a dispute with respect to the said land, the petitioner’s father filed O.S.No.21 of 1956 in the Court of District Munsif, Tirupati, for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants therein and the suit was decreed. After demise of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner filed an application under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act (for short, ‘the Act’) before the 3^rd respondent for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of the land in Survey No.240. The 3^rd respondent, instead of conducting an enquiry, erroneously rejected the application through order, dated 16.10.1981, on the ground that the said land is a tank bed land (cheruvu poramboke) and there was a requisition from the Zilla Parishad High School for grant of the said land. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed revision under Section 5 (2) of the Act before the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent, taking note of the documents filed before her, allowed the revision through order, dated 16.05.2000, and set aside the order passed by the 3^rd respondent. Thereafter, at the instance of one P. Sivasankar Reddy, S/o. P. Bali

¶9

Reddy - the 5^th respondent herein, the 1^st respondent entertained the revision petition filed under Section 7 (d) of the Act and allowed the same through the impugned order, dated 29.12.2003. The petitioner assails the same on the grounds that (i) the revision at the instance of a third party, who is a stranger, is not maintainable and (ii) the 1^st respondent has to consider the crucial aspects with respect to the suit evidencing right and possession of the writ petitioner even by 1956 and the cist receipts for Faslies 1358 to 1364.

¶10

The land in Survey No.240 corresponds to Piyamaish No.304, which belongs to pre-abolition period, and the land in Survey No.239 alone is the tank bed land (kotha cheruvu), which is evident from the map filed before the 2^nd respondent. While passing the impugned order, these crucial aspects have not been considered by the 1^st respondent and the entire order is based either on the averments of the counter affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer or the order passed by the 3^rd respondent. Though the land is required by the Zilla Parishad High School, which is by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the same cannot be a ground for refusal for grant of patta to the petitioner, to which he is rightly entitled to.

¶11

Counter affidavit has been filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vedurukuppam Village - the 4^th respondent. There is hardly any denial of the petition averments and the scope and contents in it are nothing but reiteration of the facts recorded in the order passed by the

¶12

1^st respondent. There is no denial of the specific averments about the suit and the revenue receipts and the fact that the land situated in Survey No.239 is the land covered by the tank bed, but not the land in Survey No.240. It is clearly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the 1^st respondent suffers from error apparent on the face of the record in not taking into consideration the material, which was crucial for determination for grant of pattas. Even assuming that the land is required by the Zilla Parishad High School, the said fact cannot disentitle the petitioner for grant of patta, as the petitioner has a statutory right and is eligible for the same. Inasmuch as the 3^rd respondent had rejected the claim of the petitioner on irrelevant considerations, the

¶13

2^nd respondent, who is competent authority, under Section 5 (2) of the Act, by taking note of the material evidencing the right and possession, had set right the injustice caused by setting aside the order of the 3^rd respondent. So far as the 1^st respondent is concerned, he has committed the same error by totally ignoring the material on record and by placing reliance on irrelevant considerations.

¶14

In those circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

The miscellaneous petitions filed in the Writ Petition shall stand disposed of.

¶16

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶17

20.09.2014

¶18

P.R. Narasimha Reddy S/o Rami Reddy v. The Commissioner, Appeals, O/o the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.R. Narasimha Reddy S/o Rami Reddy v. The Commissioner, Appeals, O/o the Chief Commissioner

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

Bodhan Filling Station Vs B Padmavathi

Layam Yeswhanth, Vs The State Government of Andhra Pradesh

Danda Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Basaveswara Rao Vs The State Represented by the Principal

Smt. P.Arun Kumari Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Chatla Triveni, Vs Devaboina Narasavva

Jarpala Gopya , Gopi Vs Smt Usha Rani