WP/16558/1996 of SAMPAL NARASAMMA Vs THE JOINT COLLECTOR CUM SETTLEMENT OFFICER, on 29 December 2006

ORDER:

In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a declaration thatthe action of the respondents, in seeking to interfere with theirpeaceful possession of the land in an extent of Ac.3-00 inSy.No.13 of Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam, is arbitrary and illegaloffending Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

The Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer under the InamsAbolition Act granted patta, for an extent of Ac.3-00, in favour ofthe petitioners. Respondents 4 to 14 sought for pattas to begranted in their favour in an extent of Ac.7-00 in the very samesurvey number including the 3-00 Acres of land for which a pattahad already been granted in favour of the petitioners. The claimsand counter claims were adjudicated by the Joint Collector – cum-Settlement Officer under the Inams Abolition Act and, by orderdated 24.6.1996, the earlier patta granted in favour of thepetitioners, for an extent of Ac.3-00, was upheld. Respondents 4to 14 filed O.S.310 of 1992 before the III Addl. Subordinate Judge’sCourt, Visakhapatnam wherein the petitioners herein were notarrayed as defendants. On coming to know of the said suit beingfiled by respondents 4 to 14 herein, the petitioners sought toimplead themselves in the suit and, on their application being dismissed, they filed C.R.P.1760 of 1996 and this Court, by orderdated 21.5.1996, granted stay of all further proceedings. O.S.310of 1992 was allowed by order dated 7.6.1996. Aggrieved therebythe petitioners herein filed A.S.162 of 1998 before the II Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the said appeal wasdismissed. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners have preferredS.A.No.346 of 2000 and respondents 4 to 14 filed S.A.No.642 of2001 and W.P.No.22517 of 1999. Both the second appeals andthe writ petition were heard together and this Court, by order dated 29.7.2005, passed the following order:

“a) Second AppealNos.346 of 2000 and 642 of 2001 are dismissed. It is,however, made clear that the decree in O.S.No.310 of 1992, which now isrestricted to the one for declaration about the classification of the suitschedule property and grant of injunction against the defendants therein,does not bind the 4[th] respondent herein, on those aspects.

b) Writ petition NO.22517 of 1999 is allowed, and the order dated 24.6.1996,passed by the second respondent, on the application submitted by thepetitioners under Section 11 of the Act and those passed in the revisions filedunder Sections 5 and 7 of the Act, are set aside. The matter is remanded tothe second respondent, for fresh consideration, in accordance with law.c) The second respondent shall not club or mix up the claims of any otherindividuals, with the application of the petitioners. It shall be dealt with, on itsown merits. If it becomes necessary to examine the impact of patta grantedin favour of the respondents 4 and 5, it shall be open to the petitioners toimplead them in the proceedings before the second respondent.

d) Inasmuch as the application under Section 11 of the Act was filed, by thepetitioners, on the strength of an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1672of 1992, the application shall be treated, as having been filed within the periodof limitation.

The second respondent shall dispose of the proceedings within aperiod of six months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Therecord, if any, received by this Court, from the second respondent, shall betransmitted, forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.”

It is submitted by Sri Ch.Samson Babu, learned counsel forthe petitioners, that pursuant to the orders of this Court, the JointCollector had passed an order upholding the petitioners’ patta foran extent of Ac.3-00 of land. Learned counsel would submit thatthis writ petition was filed on the apprehension that the petitioners would be evicted from their patta lands of an extent of 3-00 Acres. Learned counsel would submit that in view of final orders beingpassed by this Court, in S.A.346 of 2000, S.A.642 of 2001 andW.P.22517 of 1999 dated 29.7.2005, no further orders arenecessary in this writ petition.

It is necessary to note that this Court had earlier passed aninterim order in W.P.M.P.20344 of 1996 in W.P.No.16558 of 1996dated 14.8.1996. Acceding to the petitioners’ request, that nofurther orders are necessary, in effect, would mean that the earlierinterim orders passed by this Court injuncting the respondentsfrom interfering with the possession of the petitioners would be thefinal order in this writ petition. I am, therefore, not inclined toaccede to such a request. Suffice to hold that, in view of thesubsequent orders passed by this Court on 29.7.2005 and in asmuch as the Joint Collect is said to have passed an orderupholding the patta granted in favour of the petitioners for anextent of Ac.3-00, the apprehension which may have existed at thetime of filing of this writ petition, no longer survives as at present.

Leaving it open to the petitioners herein, if they areaggrieved by any action taken by the respondents at a later date,to avail such remedies as are available to them in law, this writpetition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

___________

29-12-2006

asp