WRIT PETITION 6433 on 16 May 1975

ORDER:-

The petitioner claims that she purchased land admeasuringan extentof Ac.3.60 centsin Sy.No.419/1of Chinna[Chowk]Village, Kadapa, YSR District, by virtue of a registered[Sale][ Deed]dated03.09.1979vide document No.4285/1979, fromoneSriTupakula Venkatappa, who inturn purchased the said[property]from one Sri K.Chinna Gurappa through Registered Sale[Deed]dated 16.05.1975 vide document No.1829 of 1975.The[said][ Sri]K.Chinna Gurappainturnpurchased the same fromoneSriGovindharajulu through a registered Sale Deed dated[18.03.1972]vide document No.965/1972.

2. Itis further caseof thepetitionerthat, whentherespondents tried to dispossess her from the subject[land][ on][ the]ground that the same was required for allotment of[house][ sites][ in]favor of flood victims, she filed a writ petition vide[WP][ No.24137]of 2001.It is her further case that,initially this Court by orderdated 23.11.2001 directed the respondents to maintain[status][ quo]and eventually the said writ petition was disposed[of][ by][ order]dated15.11.2008 grantingliberty to her to submit[a]detailed

respondent therein within a period of fourrepresentation to the 4weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

3. Itis further caseof the petitioner that, pursuant toorder passed by this Court in the above writ petitionshe maderespondent and when there wasnorepresentation to the 4action,she claims that she made a representationto thegovernment and the samewasforwarded to the 2'^'^ respondent. Itndrespondent called for a report fromis further stated that the 2the 4"' respondent, accordingly a report dated 22.04.2016wasextent of Ac. 1.50submitted stating that land admeasuring ancents in Sy.No.419/1 of Chinna Chowk Village, KadapaDistrictSri Govindharajulu, who inturn soldwasassigned in favor of oneto the vendors of the petitioner. It is further casethe said propertydespite makingrepresentation the 4of thepetitionerthatthe order dated 15.11.2008 in WP No.24137 ofrespondent as perorders on the said2001, the 4^^ respondent without passing anyinterfere with the possessionof therepresentation,triedtoground that the subject land is required forpetitioner on thedistribution of house site pattas to the weaker section.It Is furtherthecaseof the petitioner that without issuing notice or following due process of law the 4^'' respondent continued interfere[with][ her]possession, she filed the present writ petition.

4. On the other hand, the 4*^ respondent filed counteraffidavit inter alia contending that, originally land[to][ an][ extent][ of]Ac.3.60 cents in Sy.No.419/1 was assigned in favor[of][ one][ Sri][ T.]Govindharajulu on 04.02.1969.Itis further stated[that][ the][ said]Govindharajulu violated the conditions of DKT patta[inasmuch][ as]he has alienated the subject land in favor of third parties. In viewof the same, action was initiated against the original assignee andthe land was resumed by duly cancelling the patta granted[in][ his]favor by order dated 06.07.1994 by making necessary[entries]inthe revenue records.It is further stated that, subsequently[house]site pattas were granted to journalists and at present[there][ are]existing houses over the subject land which is locally[called][ as]journalist colony.It is specifically averred in the[counter][ affidavit]that, the petitioner was neverin possession of theland.Itiscategorically stated in the counter affidavit that[pursuant][ to][ order]dated 15.11.2008 in WP No.24137 of 2001, the petitioner[did not]submit any representation.Itis further stated that,after a longlapse of seven years, she submitted a representationtothegovernment seeking to issue no objection certificate[in][ respect][ of]affidavit inter alia contending that, originally land[to][ an][ extent][ of]Ac.3.60 cents in Sy.No.419/1 was assigned in favor[of][ one][ Sri][ T.]Govindharajulu on 04.02.1969.Itis further stated[that][ the][ said]Govindharajulu violated the conditions of DKT patta[inasmuch][ as]he has alienated the subject land in favor of third parties. In viewof the same, action was initiated against the original assignee andthe land was resumed by duly cancelling the patta granted[in][ his]favor by order dated 06.07.1994 by making necessary[entries]inthe revenue records.It is further stated that, subsequently[house]site pattas were granted to journalists and at present[there][ are]existing houses over the subject land which is locally[called][ as]journalist colony.It is specifically averred in the[counter][ affidavit]that, the petitioner was neverin possession of theland.Itiscategorically stated in the counter affidavit that[pursuant][ to][ order]dated 15.11.2008 in WP No.24137 of 2001, the petitioner[did not]submit any representation.Itis further stated that,after a longlapse of seven years, she submitted a representationtothegovernment seeking to issue no objection certificate[in][ respect][ of]

IriWP 6433«

' t-t

subject land for construction of commercial complex.[With]theabove contentions the respondents prayed to dismiss[the]writpetition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

6. Perused material available on record.

7. Thepresentwritpetitionisfiledquestioningtheaction of the respondents in trying to dispossessing[the][ petitioner]fromlandindispute withoutissuing anynotice andwithoutfollowing the due procedure contemplated under law.It is not indispute that the petitioner filed writ petition vide[WP][ No.24137][ of]2001 which was disposed of by order dated 15.11.2008, grantingliberty to the petitioner tofile a detailed representationto theTahsildar within four weeks from the date of the order.It wasfurther directedthat,if such a representationis[received,]thesame shall be disposed of after affording an opportunity of beingheard to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner[did not][ file][ any]representation pursuant to the said order passed by[this][ Court.]On perusal of the order passed by this Court in the[above][ writ]petition,it is clear that the respondents have filed[counter][ affidavit]action of the respondents in trying to dispossessing[the][ petitioner]fromlandindispute withoutissuing anynotice andwithoutfollowing the due procedure contemplated under law.It is not indispute that the petitioner filed writ petition vide[WP][ No.24137][ of]2001 which was disposed of by order dated 15.11.2008, grantingliberty to the petitioner tofile a detailed representationto theTahsildar within four weeks from the date of the order.It wasfurther directedthat,if such a representationis[received,]thesame shall be disposed of after affording an opportunity of beingheard to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner[did not][ file][ any]representation pursuant to the said order passed by[this][ Court.]On perusal of the order passed by this Court in the[above][ writ]petition,it is clear that the respondents have filed[counter][ affidavit]

stating that the subject land was initially assigned[in][ favor][ of][ one]Sri T. Govindharajulu on 04.02.1969 vide patta No.866.It wasfurther stated that as the original assignee has not[brought][ the]land under cultivation and sold the same to Sri K.C.Gurrappa,[the]assignment was cancelled after following due process[of][ law][ and]the land was resumed to government by order dated 06.07.1994.The said resumption order attained finality. By observing[so,][ this]Court directed the petitioner to submit a detailed[representation][ to]theTahsildar.Admittedly,thepetitionerdidnotfileanyrepresentation as per the said order. Further, on perusal[of][ report]dated22.04.2016,itisclearthatthepetitioner madearepresentation to the government seeking to issue no[objection]certificateinrespectofsubjectlandforconstructionsofcommercialcomplex.Fromthe above,itisclearthat,thepetitioner without adhering to the order passed by[this][ Court]inthe earlier round of litigation, claiming right over[the][ subject][ land.]Further, it is within the knowledge of the petitioner[that][ the][ subject]land was originally assigned in favor of one Sri T.[Govindharajulu]and later the same was resumed to government on 06.07.1994by duly cancelling the assignment made in his favor.[Further,]it isalso not in dispute that the petitioner is claiming[right][ over][ the]

subject lands by virtue of a registered sale deed from her vendorswhointurnpurchasedfromtheoriginalassigneeSriT.Govindharajulu.It is pertinent to mention that the Act 9 of 77prohibits alienationof assignedlands.In the caseonhand,though the petitioner is aware of the fact that thelandwasresumed, she has not taken any steps to challenge the said orderor did not make any representation to the 4^^ respondent as perorder dated 15.11.2008 passed in WP No.24137 of 2001. Therepresentation said to have been made by the petitioneriISseeking to issue no objection to constructcommercial complexover the landin dispute, whichis notin tune with the orderpassed by this court in the earlier round of litigation.

8. The counselfor thepetitioner wouldstrenuouslycontend that the alleged DKT patta granted in favor of originalassignee does not contain fasli year and therefore the samecannot be taken into consideration. The argument advancedbythe counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced inasmuchas, merely because the DKT patta did not contain the fasliyear.will not change the nature and classificationof the land. Thesubject land will not loose its character of assigned land. Further,strenuouslycontend that the alleged DKT patta granted in favor of originalassignee does not contain fasli year and therefore the samecannot be taken into consideration. The argument advancedbythe counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced inasmuchas, merely because the DKT patta did not contain the fasliyear.will not change the nature and classificationof the land. Thesubject land will not loose its character of assigned land. Further, nothing is placed on record by the petitioner to show that thesubject land in private patta land.

9. Further,it was categorically averredin the counteraffidavit subsequent to the resumption order dated 06.07.1994,the4^''respondentgrantedhousesitepattasinfavorofjournalists, who inturn constructed residential houses. Thesameis not denied by the petitioner by filing reply affidavit. Further, thepetitioner also did not file any document to show that sheisinpossession of the land in question.affidavit subsequent to the resumption order dated 06.07.1994,the4^''respondentgrantedhousesitepattasinfavorofjournalists, who inturn constructed residential houses. Thesameis not denied by the petitioner by filing reply affidavit. Further, thepetitioner also did not file any document to show that sheisinpossession of the land in question.

10. Asalreadynotedsupra,thepetitionerfailedtosubmit representation to the 4*^ respondent as per order dated15.11.2008, passed in WP No.24137 of 2001, cannot maintainthe present writ petition. Apart from the same, the subject landwas resumed on 06.07.1994 and subsequently house site pattaswere distributed in favor of journalists. From the above,it is clearthat the petitioneris not in possession of the landin dispute,therefore, the question of dispossessing her from the subject landdoes not arise.submit representation to the 4*^ respondent as per order dated15.11.2008, passed in WP No.24137 of 2001, cannot maintainthe present writ petition. Apart from the same, the subject landwas resumed on 06.07.1994 and subsequently house site pattaswere distributed in favor of journalists. From the above,it is clearthat the petitioneris not in possession of the landin dispute,therefore, the question of dispossessing her from the subject landdoes not arise.

11. For the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in thewrit petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.No order asto costs.writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.No order asto costs.

As a sequel, pending applications,if any,shall stand closed.

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- A VIJAYA BABUASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRI. V R REDDY KOWUR+Advocate [OPUC]

1. Two CCS to GP FOR REVENUE (AP) ,High Court Of Andhra[Pradesh.]

2. [OUT]

3. Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/04/2025

ORDER

WP.No.6433 of 2020

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS