WP/14805/1999 of P.Srirama Murthy, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 29 December 2011

O R D E R :

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus directing therespondents not to evict the petitioners from their lands admeasuring anextent of Ac.3.76 cents and Ac.1.88 cents respectively in R.S.No.399/1of Anakoderu Village, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. Thepetitioners also seek a declaration that the notice dated 21.6.1999issued by the 2[nd] respondent, is arbitrary and illegal.

It is pleaded that the land in question originally belonged to oneJupudi Kesava Rao who donated the same to Bhoodan Yagna Board inthe year 1955 and in turn Bhoodan Yagna Board allotted the said land tothree persons namely Pandey Ganesh Prasad, Yasoda NarasimhaMurthy and Dasari Pullamma in the year 1957. The said allotteesalienated the land in question to Challaboina Nageswara Rao, GangulaSomanna and Tirtala Krishna Murthy under registered sale deeds, whoin turn sold the same to the petitioners under Agreement of Sale. It isclaimed that the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment ofthe land in question from the date of their purchase and they were alsoissued pattadar pass books. Their possession has also been recordedin the report dated 27.06.1990, submitted by the Mandal RevenueOfficer, Bhimavaram, after due enquiry. In spite of the same, a show-cause notice dated 9.11.1998 was issued by the 1[st] respondent –Revenue Divisional Officer stating that the land in question was allottedto third parties by Bhoodan Yagna Board and calling upon thepetitioners to show-cause as to why they should not be evicted. Thepetitioners gave a reply dated 23.11.1998 reiterating that they have beenin possession and enjoyment since 1957 and the Bhoodan YagnaBoard has no right or title over the same. In the meanwhile therespondents 3 to 5 herein filed W.P.No.2174 of 1999 claiming that theland in question was allotted to them by the Bhoodan Yagna Board byproceedings dated 16.10.1989 under Section 15 of A.P. Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965 and the Rules made thereunder and seeking adirection to the Mandal Revenue Officer to grant pattas in their favour. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 28.04.1999 with adirection to the Mandal Revenue Officer to issue pattas to the petitionerstherein under Rule 11 of A.P. Bhoodan and Gramdan Rules, 1965. Pursuant to the same, the respondent No.2 issued a notice dated21.06.1999 informing the petitioners the order passed by this Court inW.P.No.2174 of 1999. Aggrieved by the said notice, dated 21.06.1999,the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that havingdropped the eviction proceedings initiated by the 1[st] respondentpursuant to the show-cause notice dated 9.11.1998, the respondentscannot take any steps for grant of pattas to the respondents 3 to 5. It isalso contended that as the petitioners have dug fish tanks in the land inquestion and have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of thesame as rightful owners, they cannot be dispossessed on the basis ofthe allotment made by Bhoodan Yagna Board in favour of therespondents 3 to 5.

On the other hand, it is claimed by the respondents 3 to 5 that inpursuance of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.2174 of 1999 they weregranted pattas and they were also put in possession of the land inquestion.

In the counter-affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer onbehalf of the respondents 1 & 2, it is stated that the impugned notice wasrightly issued in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court inW.P.No.2174 of 1999. It is also stated that no eviction proceedings havebeen initiated as the land in question belongs to Bhoodan Yagna Boardand not Government land.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

As noticed above, under the impugned notice dated 21.06.1999the petitioners were only informed about the order passed by this Courtin W.P.No.2174 of 1999 directing grant of pattas to the respondents 3 to5 herein. Therefore, even assuming that the petitioners have absolute title and possession in respect of the land in question, they would havesubmitted their objections, in which event appropriate orders wouldhave been passed by the respondents 1 & 2 after making the necessaryenquiry.

Apparently, the matter involves various disputed questions offact, both with regard to the possession and title which cannot beenquired into and decided by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitiongranting liberty to the petitioners herein to submit their objections to theimpugned notice dated 21.06.1999 within a period of four weeks fromtoday. If any such objections are received within the time mentionedabove, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall bepassed by the respondents 1 & 2 in accordance with law, asexpeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (8) weeksthereafter. Needless to mention that before passing such order opportunity of hearing shall be given to the petitioners as well as therespondents 3 to 5 to establish their respective claims. Till such order ispassed, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained withregard to possession and enjoyment of the property in question. Nocosts.

Dt. 29.12.2011Note: Issue CC in three days (B/o) gbs _____________

G.ROHINI, J