HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 12484 OF 2009 DATED 10TH OCTOBER, 2014.
Between C.Chandrakala ….Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 12484 OF 2009 ORDER:
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 2 and learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 3 and 4.
The petitioner states that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 169.61 square yards bearing No.5/2-B comprised in Sy.No.201/2 of Tadipatri town, Anantapur district having purchased the same from one C.Lakshminarayana Reddy and two others through registered sale deed 29.9.2006 and since the date of purchase of the said land, she was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The said property was assessed to vacant land tax vide assessment No.323 by the third respondent and the same had been paid. It is stated that the said property was acquired by the ancestors of said C.Lakshminarayana Reddy. Originally one C.Adinarayana Reddy was assigned an extent of 1856 square feet by proceedings dated 28.6.1996. Ever since the date of assignment, the predecessors of the petitioner were paying the tax to the third respondent in respect of the house constructed over the said land. Thereafter, the petitioner leased out the premises to one Mallikarjuna Gupta for running a medical store. Thereafter the shop became in dilapidated condition and therefore the same was pulled down to construct a building in the said land. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted an application to the third respondent on 22.11.2006 for approval of building plan. The third respondent also issued ownership certificate on 2.2.2007 in respect of the said property. While the application of the petitioner for sanction of building permission was pending with the third respondent, the fourth respondent came to the subject land on 24.6.2009 and tried to enter into the premises without notice and authority of law. On enquiry the petitioner came to know that the respondents are proposing to construct a community hall under Indira Kranthi Pathakam. In these circumstances, challenging the action of the fourth respondent in interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the subject land, the present Writ Petition is filed.
In view of the dispute with regard to the title of the subject land, the District Collector, Ananthapur District was asked to file counter affidavit and in response to the same, counter affidavit is filed stating that there exists proceedings R.Dis.No.8699/66/A3, dated 28.06.1966, and it reads as follows:
“ In the circumstances reported by the Tahsildar, Tadipatri and as recommended by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur in the reference 2nd and 3rd cited, it is hereby ordered that S.201-2 measuring 1856 sq.ft of Tadipatri town which was transferred from street poramboke to town site poramboke for eventual assignment to Sri C.Adinarayana Reddy of Tradipatri in Collector D.Dis.No.2585/53, dated 31.5.53 is assigned to Sri C.Adinarayana Reddy, the applicant, at the market value of Rs.65/- per cent and ground rent of Rs.6.25 per acre under the provisions of B.S.O.21-14(1) dispensing its sale in public auction.
The Tahsildar, Tadipatri is requested to issue patta form to the applicant Sri C.Adinarayana Reddy after collecting the market value.
Sd/-xxxxxxx For Collector, Ananthapur.”
However, there is no record issuing patta form in favour of said C.Adinarayana Reddy after collecting market value. In view of absence of consequential proceedings, it was stated that the claim of the petitioner is said to be doubtful. . Though reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner, no record or evidence is filed substantiating the title over the subject land in favour of said C.Adinarayana Reddy which was alleged to have been assigned in the year 1966. These disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in Writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the petitioner has purchased the property in question through registered sale deed and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. In view of the same, liberty is given to the petitioner to establish her title in respect of the property in question by filing appropriate proceedings, for which, three months’ time is granted. Till then the respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property. It is needless to observe that if the respondents want to interfere with the possession of the property of the petitioner after three months, the same shall be after following the due procedure established under law.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 10TH OCTOBER, 2014.
Msnro