HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1902 of 2012 Date:23.01.2014 Between:
Kancharana Raghu, S/o Late Sita Ramayya and ten others.
. Petitioners And:
The District Collector, Visakhapatnam and five others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.5: Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy Standing Counsel for GVMC Counsel for Respondent No.6: Smt V.Sujatha The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Acs.7.08 cents in Survey No.13 (Old 42D) of Madhavadhara Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District (for short ‘the subject land’), by re-classifying the said land as ‘Gadda Poramboke’, as illegal and contrary to the judgment and decree, dated 29.07.2000, of this Court in Second Appeal No.346 of 2000. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the subject land.
The petitioners, who are 11 in number, represented by their Power of Attorney holders, claimed that their mother was granted lease of the subject land by the erstwhile Zamindar of Vizianagaram Estate; that the petitioners’ mother died on 07.01.1975; that they have succeeded to the ryotwari rights over the properties of their mother; that when respondent Nos.1 and 2 have wrongly classified the subject land as poramboke, they have filed O.S.No.310 of 1992 in the Court of the learned III Additional Sub-Ordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam; that the said suit was decreed by the judgment and decree, dated 07.06.1996, whereunder multiple reliefs including that of permanent injunction restraining respondent Nos.1 and 2 and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land was granted; and that the said judgment was confirmed by this Court by judgment, dated 29.07.2000, in Second Appeal No.346 of 2000.
The petitioners further pleaded that they have filed an application under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and that the said application having been dismissed by the primary authority, they have filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records and the same is pending. The petitioners alleged that on 23.01.2012, respondent Nos.2 and 3 along with other officials visited the subject land and made an attempt to dig a drainage channel through it and proposed to lay a bitumen road. Feeling aggrieved by this action of respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioners filed this Writ Petition.
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein the plea of the petitioners regarding the grant of decree in their favour has been admitted. It is averred that the application filed by the petitioners for grant of ryotwari patta was rejected by the Joint Collector-cum- Settlement Officer, after due enquiry, on 25.09.2006; that the Revision Petition filed by the petitioners against the said order was also dismissed by the Director of Survey, Andhra Pradesh on 05.10.2010; and that aggrieved by the said two orders, the petitioners filed Revision Petition before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh and that the same is pending adjudication before him. It is further averred that the cultivating tenants-
S.Ammanamma and another were granted ryotwari patta for an extent of Acs.3.00 of land on 28.02.1975 and another person by name Goparaju Gopala Rao was granted ryotwari patta for an extent of Acs.2.00 of land on 28.04.1975 and that the remaining extent of Acs.2.08 cents of land remained as the Government land. In the counter-affidavit it is further averred that the petitioners failed to prove their possession for grant of ryotwari patta, before the hierarchal authorities, and that, therefore, they are not entitled to any relief.
The petitioners filed a reply-affidavit, wherein it is, inter alia, averred that the land for which ryotwari pattas were granted to third parties, as referred to in the counter-affidavit, is different from Acs.7.08 cents of the land claimed by them.
At the hearing, it has come out that the second Revision Petition filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration by order, dated 29.07.2013 and that questioning the same, the petitioners filed a Writ Petition which is pending before this Court.
One person by name Sanapala Kodanda, S/o S.Narasimhulu, filed an application for his impleadment, inter alia, stating that his great grand father acquired the land admeasuring Acs.8.02 cents in Survey No.42-D from one Sanapala Somulu, one of the archakas, in whose favour the Maharaja of Vizianagaram has made a grant for performing the services of dhoopa, dheepa, naivedyam to Lord Madhavaswamy; that his predecessors were in continuous possession of the said land and that out of the said extent, his grand father has sold away an extent of Acs.2.00 of land in R.S.No.10 during his life time to one T.Sanyasayya @ Babu; and that his grand father has also acquired an extent of Ac.0.94 cents of land in R.S.No.9/4 co-relating to old Survey No.42(D). The said person was impleaded, by order, dated 12.12.2013, as respondent No.6 in the Writ Petition.
The prayer in the Writ Petition, understood from its correct perspective, is literally for execution of the decree granted by the civil Court, as partly confirmed in the Second Appeal by this Court. In the Second Appeal, the decree granted by the trial Court is restricted to the one for declaration regarding classification of the subject land and for grant of injunction. This Court while confirming the grant of injunction, however, stated that the said injunction order does not bind one Kancharna Ratnam, who was respondent No.4 therein. If the respondents have re-classified the subject land as Gadda Poramboke, such an action falls in the teeth of the judgment and decree of the trial Court, as confirmed in the Second Appeal by this Court. Similarly, if respondent Nos.1 and 2 and their subordinates have been interfering with the petitioners’ purported possession of the subject land, the same also would be in violation of the decree of permanent injunction. Thus, in effect, the petitioners sought for execution of the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
Ordinarily, a Writ Petition is not an appropriate remedy for a person who seeks enforcement of a decree. The petitioners are entitled to seek execution of the decree through different modes prescribed under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, if the official respondents have been acting in a high handed manner in violation of the decree obtained by them. Interestingly, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are silent as to whether they have been digging a part of the land which is subject matter of the judgment and decree. In any event, this Court is not inclined to delve into this aspect as, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to approach the executing Court for enforcement of the decree.
As regards the claim of respondent No.6, admittedly, no ryotwari patta has been granted to him so far. The petitioners have not claimed any relief against respondent No.6. On the contrary, respondent No.6 has himself volunteered to come on record. This is not the appropriate forum for adjudication of the inter se rights of the petitioners on the one side and respondent No.6 on the other. As on today, the rights of the petitioners and respondent No.6 are inchoate as, the claim of the petitioners for grant of ryotwari patta was rejected by the hierarchal authorities and is pending in this Court, while in case of respondent No.6, he has not even filed any claim for grant of ryotwari patta. It is for both these parties to pursue their legal remedies for claiming ownership rights over the subject land.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners to seek enforcement of the decree obtained by them, in the event, the official respondents are acting contrary thereto.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 25.01.2012, is vacated and WPMP.No.2364 of 2012 and WVMP.Nos.1722 of 2012 and 3986 of 2013 are dismissed as infructuous.
23rd January, 2014 DR
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY