Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 - Writ of Mandmus - Change of 1B register - challenged before RDO - who allowed the appeal - Revision to collector pending , stay petition pending - suits are pending - Writ for mandamus and for working out remedies in Civil Suits penning - Pending all , Thasildar exceed his powers and with the aid of police evicted the petitioner and damaged crop - High court allowed the writ with a direction to dispose the case pending before Collector speedily and also directed to pay fine for causing damage to the crop = T.Mallikarjuna and three others.. Petitioners The State of Andhra Pradesh,Represented by its District Collector,Chittoor District, Chittoor and eight others .. Respondents= Published in judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10630

Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 - Writ of Mandmus - Change of 1B register - challenged before RDO - who allowed the appeal - Revision to collector pending , stay petition pending - suits are pending - Writ for mandamus and for working out remedies in Civil Suits penning - Pending all , Thasildar exceed his powers and with the aid of police evicted the petitioner and damaged crop - High court allowed the writ with a direction to dispose the case pending before Collector speedily and also directed to pay fine for causing damage to the crop = 

While so, respondent No.6 approached respondent No.3 by way of an appeal,  
purportedly under Section 5(5) of the Act seeking setting aside of the pattadar
passbook and title deed issued in favour of the petitioners' father.  
The
petitioners contested the said appeal.  However, respondent No.3, by his order
dated 3-3-2012, allowed the said appeal.  Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioners filed a Revision Petition under Section 9 of the Act before
respondent No.2.  The petitioners sought for interim stay of the said order.
The Revision Petition along with the stay application have been pending before
respondent No.2. 
        The petitioners alleged that even before the expiry of the limitation
period of 30 days for filing Revision Petition before respondent No.2,
respondent No.4 issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of respondent
No.6 and issued written instructions in ROC No.B/985/2011 dated 6-10-2012 to
respondent No.5 to render Police protection to respondent No.6.  That with the
aid of respondent No.5, respondent No.6 has been interfering with the
petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land.
        When the Writ Petition came up for admission and hearing before a learned
single Judge, the learned counsel for the petitioners alleged that at the
instance of respondent No.4, the Police officials were attempting to forcibly
evict the petitioners from the subject land and have destroyed the red-gram
crop. 
The District Collector, Chittoor
shall issue notices to the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 9 and on the
basis of the material produced by the petitioners, he shall assess the quantum
of damages suffered by the petitioners in respect of the crop within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 
On such assessment,
the damages shall be equally apportioned among respondent Nos.5 and 9, to be 
paid to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of assessment
by the District Collector.  
The award of damages against respondent Nos.5 and 9
shall be entered in their respective Service Registers.  It is made clear that
in view of the serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.6
about the possession of the subject land, the observations made in this order
relating to the same shall not weigh with the civil Court in deciding the above-
mentioned civil suits.  
The petitioners are entitled to pursue the Revision
Petition filed before respondent No.2.  Pending the Revision Petition, status
quo as on today shall be maintained with respect to physical possession of the
land.
Subject to the above directions and observations, the Writ Petition is allowed
to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WVMP.No.1740 of 2013 is
dismissed as infructuous.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY        

W.P.No.5312 of 2013

30-09-2013

T.Mallikarjuna and three others.. Petitioners

The State of Andhra Pradesh,Represented by its District Collector,Chittoor
District, Chittoor and eight others .. Respondents

Counsel for petitioners: Sri P.S. Rajasekhar

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 7 : Assistant Government
                        Pleader for Revenue
Counsel for respondent Nos.5,  8 and 9 : None appeared
Counsel for respondent No.6 : Sri Sitaram Chaparla

?CASES REFERRED:    
Nil

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY        

W.P.No.5312 of 2013

Dated:30.09.2013

The Court made the following :


ORDER:
        This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set-aside proceedings in
Roc.No.B/985/2011, dated 06.10.2012, of respondent No.4 and proceedings, dated  
18-3-2012, changing the entry in 1-B Register maintained under the provisions of
the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short
"the Act"), in respect of Acs.2-81 cents of land in Survey No.142/2 of
Bodumalluvaripalle Village, Pileru Mandal, Chittoor District (for short 'the
subject land'). 
The petitioners also sought for a direction to the parties to
workout their remedies in the pending civil litigation i.e., O.S.Nos.74/2011 and
98/2011 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pileru.
        The brief background leading to the filing of this Writ Petition is stated
hereunder:
        The petitioners pleaded that they derived title to the subject land in the
following manner.
One K. Hanumantu was the original owner of the subject land.
Under partition deed No.15930/1920, dated 2-12-1920 taken place among the legal
heirs of K. Hanumanthu, an extent of Ac.1-00 fell to the share of K. Sanjeevaiah
s/o. K. Naganna and the remaining extent of Ac.1-81 cents fell to the share of
one Smt. Padmavathamma d/o. K. Venkatappa.  
K. Sanjeevaiah sold his share of  
Ac.1-00 under registered sale deed to one P. Subbanna under registered sale deed
dated 29-6-1926.  
Under partition deed dated 24-9-1931, P. Ramaiah s/o. Subbaiah
succeeded to the said land of Ac.1-00.  
Under sale deed dated 17-6-1964, P.
Ramaiah sold the said land to Tarikonda Krishna Murthy, the grand father of the
petitioners.
        As regards the other extent of Ac.1-81 cents out of the subject land, the
same fell to the share of Smt. P. Padmavathamma d/o. K. Venkatappa under  
partition taken place in the year 1920.
Smt. P. Padmavathamma sold the said
land to T. Krishna Murthy, the grand father of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and one
Siddavatam Chengaiah in equal shares.
On 4-12-1980, Siddavatam Chengaiah sold  
his share of land to T. Chengappa, the father of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and the
husband of petitioner No.4.
The names of the predecessors-in-interest of the
petitioners were recorded in the Adangals/Pahanies and later the name of the T.
Chengappa was recorded till Fasli 1421 (2011-12).
The petitioners pleaded that after the death of their father, they have
succeeded to the said property and have been in continuous possession and 
enjoyment of the same.  The petitioners filed copies of No.3 Adangals in support
of this plea.  
When respondent No.6 sought to interfere with the petitioners'
possession, they have filed O.S.No.74/2011 in the Court of the learned Senior
Civil Judge, Pileru for permanent injunction.  Respondent No.6 filed
O.S.No.98/2011 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pileru against
petitioner No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 for declaration of title and
permanent injunction.  Both these suits are pending.
        While so, respondent No.6 approached respondent No.3 by way of an appeal,  
purportedly under Section 5(5) of the Act seeking setting aside of the pattadar
passbook and title deed issued in favour of the petitioners' father.  
The
petitioners contested the said appeal.  However, respondent No.3, by his order
dated 3-3-2012, allowed the said appeal.  Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioners filed a Revision Petition under Section 9 of the Act before
respondent No.2.  The petitioners sought for interim stay of the said order.
The Revision Petition along with the stay application have been pending before
respondent No.2. 
        The petitioners alleged that even before the expiry of the limitation
period of 30 days for filing Revision Petition before respondent No.2,
respondent No.4 issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of respondent
No.6 and issued written instructions in ROC No.B/985/2011 dated 6-10-2012 to
respondent No.5 to render Police protection to respondent No.6.  That with the
aid of respondent No.5, respondent No.6 has been interfering with the
petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land.
        When the Writ Petition came up for admission and hearing before a learned
single Judge, the learned counsel for the petitioners alleged that at the
instance of respondent No.4, the Police officials were attempting to forcibly
evict the petitioners from the subject land and have destroyed the red-gram
crop. 
 The learned Judge has taken a very serious view of the conduct of
respondent No.7 in interfering in the civil dispute between the petitioners on
one side and respondent No.6 on the other and passed certain interlocutory
orders in this process.
It is relevant to reproduce these orders hereunder :
        22-03-2013:
        "The petitioner's allegation was that, at the instance of the Tahsildar,
the respondent police officials are forcibly evicting them from the subject
land, though a redgram crop had been raised thereupon.
        Learned Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions from the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Piler dated 22-02-2013, would submit that the Tahsildar,
Piler had addressed a letter to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Piler on 06-10-2012
requesting him to render police protection to the 6th respondent (who was issued
pattadar pass book by the then Tahsildar, Piler) from the petitioner herein; and
even though the Tahsildar had addressed the said letter, he did not provide
police protection to Sri S.A. Ahamad till date.
        Along with an additional affidavit, the petitioner has enclosed
photographs of destruction of the existing crop one of which shows a lady police
officer on the subject land. Prima facie, it appears that the instructions given
to the Learned Government Pleader for Home, by the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Piler, is false.  No provision of law which confers power on the Tahsildar,
Piler to provide police protection to the 6th respondent from the petitioner has
been brought to my notice.  I consider it appropriate therefore to direct that
both respondents 4 and 5 be personally present in Court, along with the entire
records, on 260-2-2013 at 10.30 A.M.
        Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra and Rayalaseema) and    
Learned Government Pleader for Home are present in Court and undertake to inform
the Tahsildar and the Sub-Inspector of Police respectively of their obligations
under this order."

5-3-2013 :
        The Sub-Inspector of Police, and the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police,
who was present at the site, are present in Court today.  The Tahsildar is also
present.
        The Tahsildar, who issued the proceedings dated               06-10-2012
calling upon the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pileru to provide police protection to
the 6th respondent, now submits that the petitioners had raised the crop which
was removed; and he had, subsequently, orally informed the Sub-Inspector of
Police not to interfere in the matter.  As to why he chose not to inform the
Sub-Inspector of Police in writing, asking him not to interfere in the matter,
as he did earlier on 06-10-2012, is not clear.
        The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pileru, who is present in Court today, would
admit that the photograph, which shows that a JCB was being operated to level
the land in the presence of a lady police officer, is that of the Assistant Sub-
Inspector of Police.  He would submit that, on being informed by the Assistant
Sub-Inspector of Police that there was a quarrel at the site, he had asked her
to go and pacify both the parties.  As to why the Sub-Inspector of Police did
not register any complaint either before or after the Assistant Sub-Inspector of
Police visited the site, and came back is not known.
        The petitioners' case is to the contrary.  It is their allegation that,
with police protection, the crop raised by them was destroyed and was thrown
beyond the subject land; and the Circle Inspector of Police had called both
parties, and had asked them to arrive at a settlement.  The consequence of the
arbitrary and high-handed acts of respondents 4 and 5 is that the entire crop,
admittedly raised by the petitioners, has been completely destroyed.
        Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that
the subject land is vacant as on today.  The Tahsildar, who is present in Court,
also states that the subject land is vacant.
        The District Collector, Chittoor, shall cause an enquiry as to how the
Tahsildar could have addressed a letter to the Sub-Inspector of Police asking
him to provide police protection; which provision of law conferred power on the
Tahsildar to do so; and the role of the Circle Inspector of Police, the Sub-
Inspector of Police and the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police-Smt.G.Girija in
the aforesaid incident which was resulted in complete damage of the petitioners'
crops.  The District Collector shall submit his report to this Court within
three weeks from today."
        The District Collector, Chittoor, submitted a report in compliance with
the order of this Court, wherein he has stated that respondent No.7 ought not to
have directed rendering of Police assistance to respondent No.6 and that this
action was evidently taken bona fide instead of initiating the proceedings under
Section 145 Cr.P.C.
        At the hearing, it has come out that after the filing of this Writ
Petition, the Police have not been interfering with the petitioners' possession
over the subject land.
        Sri P. Rajasekhar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, however,
lamented that respondent Nos.7 to 9 have acted high-handedly and in a lawless
manner by interfering with the petitioners' possession over the subject land and
damaged the crop.
        Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned Counsel for respondent No.6, stated that his
client is in possession of the subject land.
        As regards the change of entries in 1-B Register by respondent No.7, the
learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a Revision Petition filed by
the petitioners is pending before respondent No.2.
        Respondent No.7 filed an affidavit wherein he has stated that he has no
personal interest towards respondent No.6 and that as pattadar passbook and
title deed were issued in his favour, he has addressed respondent No.5 for
rendering protection to respondent No.6.  While tendering unconditional apology,
respondent No.7stated that he has withdrawn his proceedings dated 6-10-2012 by 
issuing proceedings dated 28-2-2013.
It is not in dispute that respondent No.7 has no authority in law to direct
granting of police protection in favour of any private party.  As rightly
conceded by the District Collector, Chittoor and also Sri Sitaram Chaparla, at
the most, respondent No.7 has power to initiate proceedings under Section 145
Cr.P.C., if the ingredients of the said provision are satisfied based on the
ground realities.  That does not appear to be the case here. There was no
warrant even for initiation of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., more
so, when two civil suits are pending between the parties.  Therefore, I have no
hesitation to hold that respondent No.7 has acted beyond his powers and in
excess of his authority.  For such action, he is saddled with costs of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) payable to the petitioners from his
personal funds.  Respondent No.7 shall not claim the said costs from the
Government.  An entry shall be made in the Service Register of respondent No.7
with respect to payment of costs.
        With regard to respondent Nos.5, 8 and 9, there is a serious dispute as to
who has damaged the crop in the subject land. The District Collector, Chittoor,
in his report has opined that the Police are not responsible for damage of the
crop in the subject land.  However, this aspect is seriously disputed by the
learned counsel for the petitioners.
When this Writ Petition was heard on 01.08.2013, initially, an order was
dictated in the open Court under the impression that notices were served and the
acknowledgments were received from respondent Nos.8 and 9. However, it has come   
out that the acknowledgment of notices on respondent Nos.8 and 9 have not been 
filed. Therefore, the order dictated in the open Court on 01.08.2013 was
recalled by order, dated 20.08.2013, with the direction to the Registry to post
the Writ Petition after filing proof of service of notices on respondent Nos.8
and 9 by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Today, the case has been posted along with the memos of proof of service on
respondent Nos.8 and 9 filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, vide
U.S.R.No.10512, dated 17.09.2013 and U.S.R.No.11411, dated 27.09.2013.
In the memo, dated 17.09.2013, it is stated by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that as per the order, dated 12.04.2013, of this Court, he has taken
out the notices to respondent Nos.8 and 9 on 20.04.2013 by way of registered
post with acknowledgment due; that as no acknowledgments were received from
respondent Nos.8 and 9, fresh notices were sent on 21.08.2013; and that
respondent No.8 (the Circle Inspector of Police) has received the registered
cover, but the acknowledgment was returned without the signature of respondent
No.8. He has further stated that he has tracked the despatch particulars of
registered article through internet, which showed that the despatch was made on
23.08.2013 itself and that the Circle Inspector has got knowledge of the present
Writ Petition. The learned counsel has filed a copy of acknowledgment received
by him without the signature of respondent No.9 (the Circle Inspector of Police
impleaded in his personal capacity) and the postal stamp. He has also filed
copies of track result of both the notices showing that the Hyderabad Jubilee
Head Office has despatched two notices on 21.08.2013 itself. Along with memo
No.11411, dated 27.09.2013, he has submitted copies of two letters, dated
26.09.2013, addressed by the Post Master, Hyderabad Jubilee Head Office to him,
wherein it is mentioned that the articles were delivered to the addressees on
24.08.2013.
From this material, this Court is convinced that respondent No.8, who is
impleaded as eo nominee party as respondent No.9, has received the notice sent
by the learned counsel for the petitioners, but failed to respond. He has not
entered appearance either through the learned Government Pleader for Home or any
private counsel.
From the fact that respondent Nos.5, 8 and 9 have not even entered appearance
and controverted the allegations made in the affidavit, filed in support of the
Writ Petition, this Court has no option other than accepting the allegations
made by the petitioners in their affidavit.
The District Collector, Chittoor
shall issue notices to the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 9 and on the
basis of the material produced by the petitioners, he shall assess the quantum
of damages suffered by the petitioners in respect of the crop within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 
On such assessment,
the damages shall be equally apportioned among respondent Nos.5 and 9, to be 
paid to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of assessment
by the District Collector.  
The award of damages against respondent Nos.5 and 9
shall be entered in their respective Service Registers.  It is made clear that
in view of the serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.6
about the possession of the subject land, the observations made in this order
relating to the same shall not weigh with the civil Court in deciding the above-
mentioned civil suits.  
The petitioners are entitled to pursue the Revision
Petition filed before respondent No.2.  Pending the Revision Petition, status
quo as on today shall be maintained with respect to physical possession of the
land.
Subject to the above directions and observations, the Writ Petition is allowed
to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WVMP.No.1740 of 2013 is
dismissed as infructuous.

___________________________  
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY      
30th September, 2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.