Smt.Boyina Malleswari v. The District Collector, Krishna District

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY W.P.No.16118 of 2007 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings R.Dis No.3931/2005 (D2), dated 19.06.2007 cancelling the pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of petitioner's land to an extent of Ac.3.85 cents covered by R.S.No.49/2 of Gayampadu Village, H/o.Urivi Village, Pedana Mandal, Krishna District as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same.

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner and possessor of subject land i.e., land to an extent of Acs.3.85 cents in RS No.49/2 of Urivi Village, Pedana Mandal, Krishna District, having purchased the same vide registered document No.511 of 2001, dated 31.03.2001 from one Ch.Gopala Radha Krishna Murthy and Ch.Siva Ramakrishna Prasad for valuable consideration. That originally the subject land belongs to one Vadlamannati Kushela Ramaiah and the same was sold in a Court auction in I.P.No.75 of 1932 filed by him on the file of District Court, Bandar. In the said auction, one Ch.Nageswara Swamy, who was the father of the petitioner's vendor purchased the same and the official receiver registered the samein favour of Ch.Nageswara Swamy under registered document No.966/1945.

3.

While so, in the year 2003, the petitioner was issued notice dated 15.02.2003 by the 4th respondent-MRO calling upon the petitioner's husband to appear on 22.02.2003 along with necessary documents to establish title over the subject land and that the husband of the petitioner attended on the same day along with documents. On the

same day i.e., 22.02.2003 again the MRO issued another notice to the petitioner with different allegations. The petitioner and her husband filed W.P.No.6631 of 2003 questioning the notices dated 15.02.2003 and 22.02.2003 issued by the 4th respondent. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16.04.2003 directing the 4th respondent to conduct an enquiry expeditiously after considering all the documents and take a decision. In pursuant to the said order dated 16.04.2003, the 4th respondent, after conducting thorough enquiry addressed a letter to the Collector vide D.Ref(A) No.99/2003, dated 14.07.2003 to permit him to handover the land purchased by the petitioner to her as the said land is ryotwari land. Accordingly, the District Collector vide proceedings D.Dis (E4) No.5001/2003, dated 22.10.2003 permitted the 4th respondent to handover the subject land to the petitioner after proper acknowledgment. 4.

In pursuant to the proceedings of the 1st respondent, the subject land was handed over to the petitioner by the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Mandal Deputy Surveyor, Pedana on 04.02.2004 in the presence of elders, after conducting panchanama and same was demarcated and boundaries were also fixed. Thereafter Patta No.734 pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued to the petitioner on 02.06.2004 and her name is also included in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor of the subject land. Against the grant of pattadar pass books, the respondents 5 to 7 filed appeal before the 3rd respondent in R.O.R D.Dis.(K) C.914 of 2004. The 3rd respondent dismissed the said appeal after giving cogent reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 5 to 7 filed revision under Section 9 of the R.O.R Act before the 2nd respondent. During the pendency of said revision, the respondents 5 to 7 filed W.P.No.16090 of 2005 and same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 03.08.2005 directing the 2nd

respondent to dispose of the revision within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. When the respondents 5 to 7 trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land by the petitioner, she filed OS No.592 of 2005 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam against them for grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondents therein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land by the petitioner along with I.A.No.832 of 2005 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction and same was granted on 21.07.2005 and made absolute by its order dated 05.09.2005. During the pendency of the suit, the 2nd respondent passed orders vide proceedings R.Dis No.3931/2005 (D2), dated 19.06.

2007 allowing the revision filed by the respondents 5 to 7 under Section 9 of R.O.R Act against the petitioner, directing the 3rd respondent to cancel the pattadar passbooks/title deeds and further directed the 4th respondent to evict the encroachment of subject land in R.S.No.49/2 of Gayampadu village. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

5.

Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents 1 to 4 admitting that the subject land has been handed over to the petitioner in pursuant to directions issued by the Collector in proceedings D.Dis.No.E4/5001/2003, dated 22.10.2003. it is stated that the subject land is classified as Tank on ground and same was given to Sri Vadlamannati Narasimha Pantulu. According to A.P (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, all communal lands and porambokes i.e., grazing lands, tanks, waste lands, rivers etc., stand transferred and vested in Government free of all encumbrances and that the sale deeds executed prior to 20.06.1975 do not come in the way of implementing the said provisions. That in

pursuant to directions issued by this Court in WP No.6631 of 2003, an enquiry was conducted by the M.R.O and submitted report to the Collector, Krishna, who issued proceedings vide D.Dis.No.E4/5001/2003, dated 22.10.2003 permitting the M.R.O, Pedana for handing over the subject land to the petitioner. Though the land is classified as Tank on the ground, but at present the same is not used for any other purpose. The subject land is not an agricultural land, but it is tank on ground since long time, but some extent of land was shown as cultivation from Fasli 1410 to 1413. That as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 25.07.2001 in Civil Court Appeal No.4787 of 2001 arising out of SLP No.13695 of 2000, the forests, tanks, ponds are nature's bounty and they maintain delicate ecological balances and that they need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment, regularization of encroachments in tank porambokes will only limit pressure for expansion encroachments in the rest of area and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6.

Counter affidavit is filed by respondents 5 to 7 reiterating the averments in the counter of the 2nd respondent stating that the tank is being used by the villagers and the same is covered by tank, tank bund and burial ground. Handing over of the subject land to the petitioner is also denied and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7.

Reply is filed by the petitioner reiterating the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and denied the averments in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. 8.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 7. 9.

Admittedly, petitioner was put in possession of the subject land on 04.02.2004 after enquiry was conducted by the Mandal Revenue

Officer in pursuant to orders of this Court in W.P.No.6631 of 2003 dated 16.04.2003, which is filed by the petitioner against notice issued by the MRO on 15.02.2003. After conducting detailed enquiry, the MRO, Peddanna, obtained permission from the District Collector vide proceedings dated 22.10.2003 permitting him to handover the possession to petitioner. This Court directed by order dated 16.04.2003 and disposed of observing as follows: "As seen from the impugned notices, the Mandal Revenue Officer has not recorded a finding that the land in petitioners occupation is grave yard or tank bed land. He only called for additional information directing the petitioners to produce the link documents. In deed to be fair to the petitioners, he even recorded the details of the purchases made by the 1st petitioner.

Insofar as the direction given to the petitioners prohibiting them from entering the land is concerned, the Mandal Revenue Officer has no such power. However, it is open to the Mandal Revenue Officer to initiate action under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or file a suit. The petitioners have not placed any evidence before this Court that pursuant to the sale deed dated 31.3.2001 they are in possession of the property. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. As the enquiry is still pending before the Mandal Revenue Officer, a direction is issued to the Mandal Revenue officer to conduct the enquiry expeditiously after considering all the documents produced by the petitioners and take decision immediately.

If any adverse decision is taken, it is open to the petitioners to avail proper remedies including filing a suit. The petitioners' title cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition. The writ petition with the above observations is disposed of. 10.

In pursuant to the same, admittedly enquiry was conducted by the MRO and he addressed a letter to the Collector vide proceedings No. D.Ref(A) 99/2003, dated 14.07.2003. Basing on the report of M.R.O, the District Collector issued proceedings dated 22.10.2003 and petitioner was put into possession on 04.02.2004 by granting pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioner. Neither the M.R.O nor the District Collector has initiated any proceedings against the petitioner. But respondents 5 to 7 filed appeal against the grant of Pattadar Passbooks on the very same ground that the subject land is recorded as tank land and it is a part of burial ground. The R.D.O dismissed the said appeal by order dated 11.04.2005 holding that in pursuant to order in Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No. 6631 of 2003, basing on

the report submitted by M.R.O, the Collector issued proceedings dated 22.10.2003 directing to handover the subject land to petitioner. Against the same, revision is preferred by the respondents 5 to 7 before the Joint Collector, who allowed the revision stating that the subject land is recorded as tank land and directed the R.D.O to cancel the pattadarpass books issued in favour of the petitioner. When this aspect was examined by the M.R.O in pursuant to orders of this Court in W.P.No.6631 of 2003, same was accepted by the District Collector and on the self same ground, the Joint Collector, ought not to have allowed the revision filed by the respondents 5 to 7. It is also pertinent to note that when the respondents 5 to 7 were interfering with the petitioner's possession, the petitioner filed civil suit OS No.

592/2005, initially injunction was granted on 21.07.2005 and same was made absolute on 05.09.2005 against the unofficial respondents herein i.e., respondents 5 to 7. Petitioner filed a copy of the judgment and decree showing that the suit was decreed against the respondents 5 to 7 holding that the subject land is not a tank land, but it is a private land. It is also the finding of the Court below in the suit that the subject land does not form part of burial ground. Though, it is stated that appeal is pending against the same, no particulars were given. Even in the counter filed by the respondents 5 to 7, it is stated that burial ground is adjacent to the subject land, but the plea in the written statement, it was mentioned as part of burial ground.

11.

Though the government is not a party to suit, the then M.R.O issued notice to the petitioner on the self-same ground and on the enquiry, it is found that the petitioner is entitled for the said land, basing on the documents filed by her and accordingly, the District Collector has also directed the M.R.O vide proceedings dated 22.10.2003 to handover the possession of the subject land to the

petitioner. When said proceedings have become final, once again on the self same ground, the pattadar passbooks would not have been cancelled by the Joint Collector in the revision filed by the respondents 5 to 7. It is not the case of the respondents 5 to 7 in their counter that earlier enquiry report filed by MRO is collusive one and in fact in the counter nothing has been stated about the same and nothing is stated about the consequential proceedings after passing of the impugned order. It is stated that in pursuance to impugned order, R.D.O issued consequential proceedings dated 19.06.2007 cancelling the pattedar pass books of petitioner.

When this Court is of the opinion that the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside, all consequential proceedings are liable to be set aside and accordingly impugned proceedings and proceedings of R.D.O dated 19.06.2007 are set aside. In view of the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stands closed. ____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 05.12.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY W.P.No.16118 of 2007 Date 05.12.2016 kvs