HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.18188 of 2007
Date: June 30, 2014
Between:
K. Laxmi.
… Petitioner And
1. The District Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad, A.P., & 3 others.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.18188 of 2007
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
2. The petitioner states that she is a landless poor person and she occupied Government land in an extent of 145 square yards in Survey No.31 of Vidyanagar, Adilabad Municipality, in the year 1995 and she applied for regularization. After due enquiry, it was found that she was in possession and eligible for allotment of house site as per G.O.Ms.No.508 Revenue (ANS.1) Department, dated 20.10.1995. She put up a small house and her family was living in the said house. Thereafter, she constructed a pacca house. While so, the 4th respondent filed O.S.No.19 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad, for perpetual injunction against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner sold the house to the 4th respondent. Ultimately, O.S.No.19 of 2003 was dismissed on 10.10.2006.
3. The petitioner filed W.P.No.3032 of 2003 seeking a direction to the authorities for issuing patta in pursuance of her application under G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20.10.1995, when the authorities did not pass any orders on her application. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 20.02.2003 directing the respondents to pass final orders for granting patta in favour of the petitioner for Plot No.15 consisting of 145 square yards in Survey No.31 situated at Vidyanagar Colony, Adilabad, in terms of the proceedings of the respondents dated 11.12.2002 within a period of four weeks. Later on, the 4th respondent filed a review petition before this Court to review the said order and this Court disposed of the said application on 20.06.2003 directing the District Collector to take appropriate action on receipt of enquiry report ordered by him. Pursuant to the said order, the impugned order is passed by the District Collector in Proceedings No.B3/5540/2005 dated 20.08.2007. The said order is challenged in the present writ petition.
4. A reading of the impugned order shows that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, by his report dated 30.09.2005 and the Mandal Revenue Inspector in his report dated 19.01.2003 stated that the 4th respondent was in possession of the land on the basis of purchase of the land on 20.10.1999 from the petitioner who in turn purchased the land from Althaf Khan in the year 1998. The District Collector on the basis of the said report came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not fulfil the criteria laid down in G.O.Ms.No.508, dated 20.10.1995 read with G.O.Ms.No.972, dated 04.12.1998, and held that the Patta Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Adilabad in favour of the petitioner is not proper and accordingly cancelled the same. He also held that the 4th respondent is a bona fide possessor from 20.10.1999 ever since purchase and the issue had to be dealt with under Section 166 (B) (1) of A.P. (T.A.) Land Revenue Act, 1317. The Tahsildar, Adilabad, was directed to resume Plot No.15 situated at Vidyanagar from the petitioner to the Government custody along with the building constructed if any over the said land under a cover of panchanama and zimma patrak and report compliance. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, was requested to take necessary action for cancellation of the Patta Certificate issued for Plot No.15 in favour of the petitioner.
5. The order passed by the District Collector clearly shows that it travelled beyond the scope of the orders of this Court dated 20.02.2003 in W.P.No.3032 of 2003 and the review order passed on 20.06.2003. In the impugned order, the Collector states that the Patta Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is cancelled and also directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to take steps for cancellation of the Patta Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner which is a contradictory statement. He also held that the 4th respondent is a bona fide possessor from 20.10.1999 ever since the purchase. G.O.Ms.No.508, dated 20.10.1995 does not deal with the sale of the lands and even if it is assumed that the 4th respondent purchased the land from the petitioner, the petitioner has no right to sell the land. The District Collector should have confined his enquiry to the right of the petitioner vis-à-vis the 4th respondent for the contentious Plot No.15, but the District Collector travelled beyond the scope. The District Collector did not see that the petitioner filed an application for regularization of her occupation and on enquiry it was found that she was in possession and enjoyment of Plot No.15. She was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.14,500/- through proceedings dated 11.12.2002 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, and the petitioner deposited the amount on 13.12.2002 in the Government Treasury. When Patta Certificate was not issued to her even after deposit of the amount, she approached this Court in W.P.No.3023 of 2003 which was disposed of on 20.02.2003.
6. The only point that should have been considered by the first respondent is whether the petitioner was eligible to be considered for regularization of her occupation of Plot No.15 in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20.10.1995 and whether due procedure was followed while issuing the Patta certificate in her favour on that date. Instead of confining his enquiry to the said fact, he travelled beyond the scope of enquiry and recorded contradictory findings.
7. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 20.08.2005 of the first respondent in Proceedings No.B3/5540/2005 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to make an enquiry whether the petitioner made application for regularization of her occupation of Plot No.15 in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20.10.1995 and whether due procedure was followed in granting Patta Certificate in her favour in pursuance of the said G.O. If the Patta Certificate in her favour is upheld, whatever consequences that may follow with regard to her rights vis-à-vis rights of the 4th respondent have to be worked out in other proceedings, but not in an enquiry before the first respondent.
8. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the first respondent is directed to pass a fresh order for consideration of the right of the petitioner for Plot No.15 in an extent of 145 square yards in Survey No.31 of Vidykanagar, Adilabad Municipality. The petitioner as well as the 4th respondent can submit necessary evidence before the first respondent and the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders after giving due opportunity to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent and pass orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of order. Till such time the status quo shall be maintained.
9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: June 30, 2014 BSB
8 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.18188 of 2007
Date: June 30, 2014
BSB