Allowed

G.S.Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the District Collector

Telangana HC4 Apr 2017WP/28128/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition where respondents refused to implement a 1965 patta order. The court held that classifying land as Assessed Waste Dry to serve future government needs violated Articles 14 and 300-A. Proceedings were set aside with a direction to rectify records within eight weeks. A counter-affidavit was never filed due to respondent negligence.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings dt.13.05.2011 and dt.02.04.2011 set aside; direction to respondents to correct land classification in revenue records within eight weeks.

G.S.Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

WP.No.28128 of 2011

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the proceedings dt.13.05.2011 of the District Collector, Chittoor and proceedings dt.02.04.2011 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, addressed to the District Collector, Chittoor, rejecting petitioner’s request to implement the ryotwari patta granted to petitioner’s father for an extent of Acs.1.87 cents in Survey No.296/2 of Ethnur Village of Ponganur Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶5

2. The counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner’s father, one late G. Munivenkatappa, had applied for a patta under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short, ‘the Act’) before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor; that in proceedings S.R.No.133/11(a)/65-PGN dt.31.07.1965 patta was granted to petitioner’s father after an enquiry; that the said order had attained finality; that he submitted a grievance petition in the cell established by the District Collector, Chittoor in the year 2010, seeking implementation of the order dt.31.07.1965 of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor under Section 11(a) of the Act; that the same was referred to the Tahsildar, Ponganur, who submitted a report corroborating petitioner’s contention that petitioner’s father was given

¶6

MSR,J wp_28128_2011

¶7

::2::

¶8

ryotwari patta for the said land; that the said report of the Tahsildar was forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle; that the latter took note of the fact that the land for which the petitioner is possessing ryotwari patta was situated in Ponganur Municipal limits and adjoining to the main road, and would be required for future needs of the Government and for public purpose; and on the basis of the said report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 1^st respondent rejected the request of the petitioner stating that the land is classified as ‘Assessed Waste Dry’ (A.W.D.).

¶9

3. The counsel for petitioner further contended that once the order passed under Section 11(a) of the Act on 31.07.1965, granting ryotwari patta to petitioner’s father had attained finality, it is not open to respondents to refuse to implement the same in the village records on the ground that it is falling within the Ponganur Municipal limits and would serve the future needs of the Government and other public purpose.

¶10

4. I find considerable force in the submission.

¶11

5. The Writ Petition had been filed in the year 2011 and till date in spite of several opportunities being given to respondents, no counteraffidavit has been filed.

¶12

6. In fact, before this Court, on 09.02.2017, two weeks time has been granted for filing a counter. The matter was listed then on 07.03.2017, when a further time of two weeks was granted. Again, it

¶13

MSR,J wp_28128_2011

¶14

::3::

¶15

was listed on 21.03.2017 when it was recorded that as a last chance, two weeks time was being granted.

¶16

7. After that, the matter is listed to-day but no counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents.

¶17

8. Though the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents, again made a request for time for filing counter-affidavit, in view of the fact that ample time had been granted, the request of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue is rejected. More particularly, because the petitioner has become a Senior Citizen by now, and it was felt that it was unjust on the part of respondents to continue to delay the disposal of the Writ Petition because of their negligence in filing a counter-affidavit.

¶18

9. As rightly contended by the counsel for petitioner, since the patta granted to petitioner’s father on 31.07.1965 under Section 11(a) of the Act has attained finality and the factum of such grant of patta to petitioner’s father is confirmed by the 3^rd respondent in his report dt.05.01.2011, merely on the ground that the land is useful for public purpose of the Government or because it was situated within Ponganur Municipal limits, the respondent nos.1 and 2 cannot classify it as ‘Assessed Waste Dry’ (A.W.D.), and on that ground refuse to implement the patta in the Revenue Records.

¶19

10. This is clearly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

¶20

MSR,J wp_28128_2011

¶21

::4::

¶22

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the proceedings dt.02.04.2011 in L.Dis/B3/257/2011 of the 2^nd respondent as well as proceedings dt.13.05.2011 in L.Dis.(F3)/2143/87 of the District Collector, Chittoor are both set aside; and a direction is issued to the respondents to make corrections as regarding classification of the subject land in accordance with the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 31.07.1965 granting ryotwari patta to petitioner’s father under the provisions of the Act.

¶23

12. This exercise shall be completed by the 3^rd respondent within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶24

13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶25

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶26

Date: 04-04-2017 Ndr/*

G.S.Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.S.Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the District Collector

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

Pulletikurthy Satyanarayanamma Vs The Tahsildar, (M.R.O.)

Smt. v. Chinnaji Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited, a Public Limited company Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue

N.Surender Vs Joint Collector

T. Satyanarayana Reddy Vs The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar

Nalkur Sripad Rao Vs The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakadikapool