WP/24318/2006 of Gajulapalle Papaiah S/o Pedda veeraiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh repby its on 27 December 2006

Conclusion

COMMON ORDER:

This common order shall dispose of both the matters, as thebackground of the cases and the impugned action complained of, issimilar.

The petitioner in W.P.No.24300 of 2006 (hereafter called as, firstpetitioner) and the petitioner in W.P.No.24318 of 2006 (hereafter calledas, second petitioner) filed the writ petitions seeking writ of Mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondents, namely, District Collector,Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Kadapa, and Mandal RevenueOfficer (MRO), Pendlimarri Mandal, in interfering with the petitioners’rights over their assigned land in their possession as illegal andarbitrary. A consequential injunction against them is also sought.

The case of the first petitioner is as follows. The landadmeasuring Ac.1.00 in survey No.1494/2 and Acs.3.71 in surveyNo.1495/1 situated at Gaganapalle village of Pendlimarri Mandal inKadapa District was assigned to P.Ramanadham vide DKT PattaNo.913, 1386 F. It is the case of first petitioner that after death ofRamanadham in 1991, land was transferred in favour of Veeramma,W/o.Ramanadham, and after her death in 2001, the land wastransferred to the first petitioner, who is the daughter of Veeramma. The first petitioner also obtained necessary endorsement in thePattadar Pass Book (PPB) issued to Veeramma and has been inenjoyment of the property. While the things stood thus, respondentsare proposing to allot the land to Yogivemana University, Kadapa. The first petitioner brought to the notice of respondents about theassignment to Ramanadham and latter to Veeramma andsubsequently to the first petitioner, in vain. The first petitioner wasinformed that the land was already resumed to the Government andshe has no right. She alleges that there are no resumption orders andeven when they are not served on her, respondents are trying todispossess her by use of force.

The case of the second petitioner is that the land admeasuringAcs.4.45 in survey No.1494/1 of Ganganapalle village was assigned to him in 1976 vide DKT Patta No.914, 1386F, that he obtainedPattadar Pass Books (PPBs), that he is paying land revenue regularlyand that he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of theproperty. However, respondents are taking steps to dispossess himhighhandedly with a view to allot the land to Yogivemana University.

These two matters are listed before this Court on 22.11.2006. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General-T)sought time for filing counter affidavit. Therefore, while ordering statusquo the matter was adjourned. Learned Assistant Government filedcounter affidavits on 12.12.2006 and the matter was heard at theadmission stage for final disposal.

In the counter affidavit filed in the first writ petition, assignment ofland to P.Ramanadham was admitted. However, it is stated that theland was resumed from the assignees for contravention of conditionsof patta in the proceedings in Ref.No.B1/687/84, dated 21.4.1984, infavour of Sri Venkateswara University Post-Graduate Center(SVUPGC). It is further averred that subsequently YogivemanaUniversity was established in SVUPGC and, therefore, an extent ofAcs.19.70 in survey Nos.1493, 1493/1, 1495, 1496/A, B, C and 1497besides the land earlier occupied by SVUPGC was handed over toYogivemana University and remaining extent of land admeasuringAcs.226.59 is under the custody of Revenue Department. A Boardwas also erected warranting trespass with prosecution and when thesame was removed by unknown persons, a complaint was lodged withStation House Officer, P.S.Pendlimarri. Several attempts were madeby anti-social elements to grab the land by making false claims.

Arguments

In W.P.No.24318 of 2006 also a counter affidavit is filed withsimilar averments.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends thatadmittedly the land was assigned to the petitioners or theirpredecessors and without there being any proceedings therespondents are making false claims that the land has been resumedfrom the assignees. He secondly submits that even if the land isresumed, petitioners alone are under the occupation of the land and,therefore, they cannot be evicted by use of force. Per contra, learnedAssistant Government pleader submits that Tahsildar issued noticesasking Ramanadham, father of the first petitioner, and GajulapallePapaiah (petitioner in W.P.No.24318 of 2006) to show cause as to whythe land should not be resumed for contravention of conditions of assignment. As no reply was received, Tahsildar passed proceedingson 21.4.1984 for resumption of the land, which was resumed, andsubsequently handed over to SVUPG Centre and thereafter toYogivemana University. Learned Assistant Government Pleader hasproduced the original file from the Office of the MRO, PendlimarryMandal.

A perusal of the file shows that the notice issued toP.Ramanadham and Gajulapalle Papapah is found at page Nos.138and 161. The Revenue Officials who made attempts to serve notice onthem endorsed on the reverse of the notices that they left the Villageand their whereabouts are not known. The resumption order dated21.4.1984 passed resuming the land from P.Ramanadham andGajulapalle Papaiah is found at page No.263. Therefore, there is nostrong reason to disbelieve the respondents especially when the oldrecord is produced before this Court for perusal. Whether the noticewas properly issued? Whether notice was properly served? andwhether resumption order is valid? are questions, which cannot begone into after long lapse of 22 years. Then it has to be seen whetherthe petitioners have placed any material in support of their case or theirallegation that they are in possession of the land. The PPB No.919bearing Serial No.M114927 (a Xerox copy is annexed to the writpetition) was originally issued to Punagani Veeramma,W/o.Ranganadham. When the land was assigned to PunaganiRamanadham, he got the passbook. Therefore the claim is doubtful. In the last page of the passbook, an endorsement allegedly made byPanchayat Secretary, Gangannapally village and Mandal RevenueOfficer, Pendlimarri Mandal, are found which shows that after death ofVeeramma, W/o.Ranganadham, PPB is changed in the name ofGajulapalle Ramulamma. Here again Veeramma is shown to be wifeof Ranganadham and not Ramanadham. Dealing with this aspect inparagraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed by MRO, it is stated that PPBvide Khata No.919 is not genuine as per 1-B Register, that PPBoriginally was issued to E.Venkata Subbaiah for survey Nos.1233,1236/2, and it was rounded of. In the same Khata No.919, the name ofPunagani Veeramma was entered. It was also further alleged that thename of Gajulapalle Ramalakshmumma, W/o.Papaiah, was enteredwithout attestation of the concerned MRO. In Form 1-B Register,pattadar is Gajulapalle Ramalakshmamma, but PPB is in favour ofGajulapalle Ramulamma. Though the counter affidavit is served on learned Counsel for petitioners on 12.12.2006, no reply affidavit is fileddenying the counter averments. Filing of reply affidavit would not havemade much difference because Xerox copy of the PPB filed by firstpetitioner ex facie appears to be not genuine in view of the counteraverments. Adangals and land revenue receipts also do notconclusively prove the allegation of the petitioners. The adangal copycontains 30 columns which is contrary to the present adangal formprescribed by the Government. In State of Andhra Pradesh, landrevenue was abolished from 1984-1985 and, therefore, muchimportance cannot be given to the land revenue receipts produced bythe first petitioner.

Insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, refuting theallegation that he is in possession and enjoyment of the land as perthe PPB and adangal extract, the counter affidavit filed by the MRO inW.P. No.21318 of 2006 contains the following averments.

“… … it is respectfully submitted that the land inS.No.1494/1 extent 4.45 acre of Ganganapalle (V) ofPendlimarry (M), Kadapa District was originally assigned toSri Gajulapalle Papaiah, S/o.Pedda Veeraiah during the year1976 vide D.K.T. No.914 of 1386 Fasli, i.e., in the year 1976but not during the year 1986 as contended by the petitionerand the lands were resumed to Government for the purposeof alienation to S.V.U.P.G. Centre during the year 1984. Thepetitioner got fake Adangal extract with Khata No.928, andobtained Pattadar Pass Book by misrepresenting the facts. As per 1-B Register of Ganganapalle (V) there is entry asGodducherla Subbamma, W/o.Mallesu, Saipet, KadapaDistrict. In Khata No.928, survey numbers are 87/2 ext. 3.22and S.No.89/1 ext.1.50 acres. The Adangal extract has beenprepared as per Pattadar Pass Book, but not as per adangalof Ganganapalle (V). Hence the petitioner obtained PattadarPass Book by misrepresentation and got crop loan inRayalaseema Gramina Bank with the fake Pattadar PassBook.”

The above averments remained uncontraverted and, therefore,they stand proved. In any view of the matter in both the cases,undisputedly the land has already been handed over to YogivemanaUniversity and the questions raised by the petitioners are questions offact, which cannot be decided in a writ petition.

The writ petitions are misconceived and are accordinglydismissed. No costs.

December 27, 2006.

YS

____________

(V.V.S.RAO,J)