WP/23975/2017 of Mylapalli LakshmammaW/o. (Late) Ramudu, (Died) per LRs 2 and 3 Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary on 30 December 2022

COMMON ORDER:

The subject property in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same. The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions are claiming title as well as possession over the subject property and therefore, both the Writ Petitioners are heard together and are being disposed of under this common order.

W.P.No.5941 of 2020

The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief:

“…… to declare the action of the respondents in trying to evict the petitioners from their lands i.e. an extent of Ac.4-95 cts in Survey No.64-8 (sub-divided as Survey Nos.64-8A, 64-8B, 64-8C and 64-8D) of Ramachandrapuram Revenue Village, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam District, without paying appropriate compensation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in respect of the above said land as per their possession and enjoyment as shown in the list prepared by the respondents….”

2. The case of the petitioners herein is that the 1[st] petitioner and his two brothers occupied the subject land to an extent of Acres 4.95 Cents in Survey No. 64/8 of Ramachandrapuram Revenue Village, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam District, which was uneven and with full of bushes and they made it fit for cultivation with their own resources and labour. Thereafter, they filed an application for assignment of Patta in favour of the 1[st] petitioner to the Tahsildar of erstwhile Chipurupalli Taluk and after due enquiry, D-patta was granted in favour of the 1[st] petitioner vide DC.No.2910/79, dated 15-02-1970 and ever since they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject property.

It the further case of the petitioners that, in the year 1977, the village was re-surveyed and the old Survey No.64/2 was sub-divided into 64/2 to 64/44 and Sy.No. 64/2P was correlated to Sy.No.64/8 for an extent of Ac.4.95 cents and the 1[st] petitioner being the member of joint family was granted D-Patta and the members of joint family were enjoying the said land. Thereafter, the 1[st] petitioner and his two brothers got the subject property divided into Acres 1.65 cents each by metes and bounds in the year 1980 and they were issued separate Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds.

It is the further case of the petitioners that, Mylapalli Ramudu of Kovvada Matchilesam Village, taking advantage of the fact that his name is similar to that of the 1[st] petitioner herein, hatched a plan to grab the subject land with the support of the Revenue Officials and obtained Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds. After his death, his wife Smt.Lakshmumma (who is the 1[st] petitioner in WP.No.23975 of 2017), filed a petition before the then Tahsildar, Ranasthalam Mandal in the year 2007 with all false allegations as if D-Patta was granted to her husband and the petitioners herein are in occupation of the same and seeking restoration of the said land. Pending the said Petition, she filed WP.No.14869 of 2007 and the same was dismissed at the admission stage observing that the petitioners therein have to avail the remedy by approaching the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ranasthalam Mandal. Pursuant to the said direction, said Smt. Lakshmumma (the 1[st] petitioner therein) has filed a petition on 18.10.2007 before the Tahsildar and requested the evict the occupiers of the land and handover possession of the said land to her and the Tahsildar has initiated proceeding and issued show cause notices i.e., Form-I notice to the 1[st] petitioner herein and Form-II notices to the father of petitioners 2 and 3 and also to the 4[th] petitioner‟s mother under Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, calling for explanation. To the said notices, the petitioners submitted their explanations and after enquiry, the Tahsildar passed proceedings Rc.No.136/2007, dated 26.12.2007, resuming the subject land as there is gross violation of the conditions of grant of pattas. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein preferred an Appeal, dated 21.01.2008, before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same is pending adjudication.

It is the further case of the petitioners that, in the meantime, pursuant to the proposal to establish a Nuclear Power Plant at Kovvada, Government proposed to acquire lands in five Revenue villages under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Though no notification was issued, alienation proposals were prepared for grant of compensation. As per the procedure under the Act, 2013, the authorities conducted Social Impact Assessment Study and prepared a list of lands under acquisition wherein the subject land is included and against the said land names of the petitioners are shown in respect of Ac.4.95 cts of land in Sy.No.64-8 with 4 subdivisions i.e., 64-8 A to 64-8D. While the things stood thus, W.P.No.23975 of 2017 was filed by the 1[st] petitioner therein, namely, Mylapalli Lakshmumma, with false and frivolous allegations seeking a direction to the respondents not to dispossess her from the subject property without providing compensation wherein the petitioners herein got impleaded as Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and the said Writ Petition is pending. As the said Writ Petition is pending, respondent-authorities are not paying compensation to the petitioners. As such, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. To the said Writ Petition the 4[th] respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations, inter alia, contending that the petitioners herein are in possession and enjoyment of the subject property.

It is further stated that, pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.14869 of 2007, the petitioners therein filed a petition before the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar, after enquiry, resumed the subject to the Government and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for compensation. It is also contended that, though the names of the petitioners are mentioned in the revenue records (enjoyment report), in view of pendency of W.P.No.23975 of 2017, compensation has not been paid and subject to the orders passed in WP.No.23975 of 2017, action will be initiated for payment of compensation. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

4. To the said counter reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners stating that as per the counter, the authorities have admitted that the petitioners are in possession of the subject property and therefore, there is no impediment to pay compensation to the petitioners. It is also stated that the fact remains is that the 1[st]petitioner herein was the original assignee of the subject property and the petitioners possess DKT Patta and their names were recorded 1-B register and which clearly shows that the petitioners are the title holders and entitled for compensation. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

W.P.No.23975 of 2017

5. The present Writ Petition is filed by the 1[st] petitioner to declare the action of respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner without providing any compensation and without giving any notice and without following due process of law. Pending Writ Petition, the 1[st] petitioner died and petitioners 2 and 3 have come on record as legal representatives of the 1[st] petitioner.

6. The case of the petitioners in this Writ Petition is that originally the subject property in an extent of Ac. 4.95 cents in Survey No.64-8 situated in Ramachandrapuram Revenue Village was assigned in favour of the husband of the 1[st] petitioner in the year 1974 under landless poor persons quota and the Tahsildar, Ranasthalam Mandal, granted D-form Patta for the subject land in the year 1998 and also issued Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds in favour of her husband and her family is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption and after death of the 1[st] petitioner‟s husband in the year 1999, she succeeded the subject property.

It is further contended that, in pursuance of the proposal to establish Atomic Energy Center at Kovvada by the 4[th] respondent-Special Officer, Atomic Energy Centre, the 2[nd] respondent-District Collector and the 3[rd] respondent-Tahsildar were acquiring lands and then the 1[st] petitioner made representations dated 17.08.2016 and 29.05.2017 to the revenue officials to pay compensation to the petitioner‟s land. However, the respondent-authorities, without considering the representations of the petitioners, are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land, without following due process of law. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

7. To the said Writ Petition, the 3[rd] respondent-Tahsildar filed his counter denying the allegations, inter alia, contending that pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.14369 of 2007, the 1[st] petitioner herein filed a petition before the Tahsildar to evict the occupants and the Tahsildar initiated action as per law and has resumed the subject property to the Government under proceedings dated 26.12.2007 on the ground that the Assignee never cultivated the land ever since the grant of patta and thereby violated the conditions of assignment.

It is further contended that, the subject property was in possession of Mylapalli Ramulu and three others, but the said land was originally assigned to Mylapalli Ramulu i.e. husband of the 1[st] Petitioner and after demise of the above assignee, the 1[st] petitioner or her family are not enjoying and are not in possession of the subject property and therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the respondents are trying to dispossess her does not arise. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

8. The petitioners in W.P.No.5941 of 2020 got themselves impleaded in the present Writ Petition and filed their counter reiterating the contentions stated in the affidavit in W.P.No.5941 of 2020.

9. Heard Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.5941 of 2020 and Sri Thota Tejeswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.23975 of 2017 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

10. Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.5941 of 2020, contended that patta has been granted in favour of the 1[st] petitioner and subsequently, after partition, the petitioners‟ names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued and they are in possession of the subject property and are cultivating the same. As the said land was proposed to be acquired by the Government for the purpose of established Nuclear Power Plant and petitioners names found place in the list prepared by the authorities under Social Impact Assessment Study, they are entitled for payment of compensation. However, compensation is not being paid to the petitioners on the ground that W.P.No.23975 of 2017 is filed and the same is pending. It is contended that the petitioners got themselves impleaded in the said Writ Petition and filed their counters.

Further, it is contended that the Tahsildar, basing on the representation given by the petitioners in W.P.No.23975 of 2017, has passed order dated 26.12.2007, which is placed on record and draw the attention of this Court to the same and contended that the said authority has categorically observed that the petitioners in W.P.No.23975 of 2017 have violated the conditions of D-Form patta, as such the subject land is liable for resumption and accordingly resumption order has been passed.

The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that pursuant to the said order passed by the Tahsildar, the petitioners in W.P.No.5941 of 2020 filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer along with stay application on 21.01.2008, which is also placed on record and draw attention of this Court and the same is pending adjudication.

He further submitted that even if possession of the petitioners is taken into consideration as admitted by the respondents themselves in the order dated 26.12.2007, the petitioners are entitled for compensation. However, the respondent-authorities are not paying compensation solely on the ground that the other Writ Petition is pending. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders in this regard.

11. Sri Thota Tejeswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.23975 of 2017 contended that, D-Form patta for the subject land was assigned to M. Ramudu, father of the petitioners 2 and 3 herein and his name was mutated in the revenue records and since then they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject property and drawn attention of this Court to the passbook and titled deeds issued by the revenue officials.

It is further contended that, the respondent-authorities, even after submission of representations by the petitioners for payment of compensation, are trying to dispossess them from the subject property, without following due process of law and without paying compensation. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners praying to consider payment compensation.

12. On the other hand the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition contended that, the respondent-authorities vide order dated 26.12.2007 held that the 1[st] petitioner‟s husband in W.P.No.23975 of 2017 was assigned the subject land and as the petitioners therein never cultivated the land ever since grant of patta and other persons have trespassed and cultivating the same and thereby the assignee has violated the conditions of assignment and therefore, resumed the subject land to the Government. As such, the petitioners in both the Writ Petitioners are not entitled for compensation.

13. The following definitions given in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 („the 2013 Act‟ for short) are relevant for better appreciation of the case.

As per Section 3(c)(iv) the 2013 Act, affected family includes a member of the family who has been assigned land by the State Government or the Central Government under any of its schemes and such land is under acquisition.

As per Section 3(x)(v) of the 2013 Act, the person interested meansany person whose primary source of livelihood is likely to be adversely affected.

As per Section 23(c)of the 2013 Act, apportionment of the compensation so decided by the Collector shall be among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land or about whom or of whose claims the Collector has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before the Collector, the compensation shall be apportioned.

14. A perusal of the record shows that, earlier, the 1[st] petitioner in W.P.No.23975 of 2017 filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.14869 of 2007 seeking restoration of possession of the subject land, contending that though the subject land was assigned in favour of her husband the petitioners in W.P.No.5941 of 2020 are in possession of the subject land. Thereby, it is evident that she herself admitted that she was out of possession of the subject property and the property is in occupation of the petitioners in W.P.No.5941 of 2020. The resumption order of the Tahsildar also clarifies that the subject property is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in W.P.No.5941 of 2020. The record further discloses that aggrieved by the resumption orders of the Tahsildar, the petitioners in W.P.No.5941 of 2020 preferred an appeal

Conclusion

before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same is pending. However, since the petitioners in W.P.No.5941 of 2020 are in possession of the property they are entitled for compensation as per the Section 3(x)(v) of the Act. If at all the petitioners in W.P.No.23975 of 2017 are having any grievance against the petitioners in W.P.No.5941 of 2020, they have to approach competent Civil Court.

15. Admittedly, as per Section 3(x)(v) of the Act, the petitioners in W.P.No.5941 of 2020 are interested persons, who can seek compensation as their livelihood is going to be affected by virtue of acquisition of the subject land. As such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with the following direction:

(i) The petitioners in W.P.No.5941 of 2020 are directed to make a representation for payment of compensation treating that they are in possession of the property, but not on the ground of assignment, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and

(ii) On such representation, the competent authority is directed to dispose of the same and pay compensation to the petitioners in W.P.No.5941 of 2020, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, W.P.No.5941 of 2020 is disposed of.

In respect of the W.P.No.23975 of 2017, in the impugned order dated 26.12.2007 of the Tahsildar it is categorically held that the father of the petitioners 2 and 3 herein was assigned the subject, but they were never cultivated the land and were never in possession of the same and therefore, the subject land was resumed to the Government. Though the petitioners herein fall under the definition of affected family as per Section 3(c)(iv) the Act, in view of resumption of the assignment and the said resumption is not questioned by the them, petitioners have no claim in the subject property. Even otherwise the assignment appeal filed by the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.5941 of 2020 is pending adjudication before the Revenue Divisional Officer.

Accordingly, W.P.No.23975 of 2017 is dismissed. If the petitioners have any grievance against the petitioners in W.P.No.5941 of 2020 they are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for their rights.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

30[th] December, 2022

________________________

JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

GBS/BRS