Between:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.2611 of 2002 Dated:29.06.2010 Kusumanchi Krishna Rao, And another.
...Petitioners And Mandal Revenue Officer, Heeramandalam, Srikakulam District, And others.
...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.2611 of 2002 ORDER:
The petitioners are brothers. Alleging that respondents are interfering with their possession of the land, they filed the instant writ petition seeking a declaration and direction.
The land comprised in survey Nos.371, 387/1 and 388/3 was originally owned by one Andhavaram Mohan Rao of Korada Manyam Village of present Heeramandalam Mandal in Srikakulam District. The petitioners purchased an extent of Acs.8.68 cents under an agreement of sale dated 01.04.1969 and another extent of Acs.3.00 under an agreement of sale dated 10.10.1969. After coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, Mohan Rao filed a declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal (LRT), Srikakulam. The same, being LCC.No.1436/PPM/75, was considered. The family of Mohan Rao was determined to hold 3.2988 standard holdings (SH) and leaving their entitlement to 1.2000 SH, the declarant was directed to surrender 2.0988 SH. Two agreements under which the petitioners claim were also exhibited before LRT as Exs.P3 and P4. Aggrieved by the order to surrender the lands, the declarant filed appeal, being LRA.No.656 of 1977, on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge – cum – Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (LRAT), Srikakulam. The same was dismissed on 17.06.1978. Mohan Rao then filed a revision, being C.R.P.No.4514 of 1978. This Court found that the transactions entered into by Mohan Rao under four agreements including Exs.P3 and P4 are genuine, and therefore, the land covered by the agreements needs to be excluded. Insofar as the other land in survey Nos.6/2 and 7/2 of Korada Village is concerned, the declarant was given option to surrender the said land or any other land of his choice.
The petitioners allege that after the disposal of civil revision petition filed by Mohan Rao their names have been entered in 10(2) Adangal for Fasli 1398, that they are in possession of the land and that the respondents are proclaiming that the lands would be taken over for distribution to weaker sections. Apprehending dispossession, they filed the instant writ petition on 11.02.2002. This Court admitted the matter on 12.02.2002, and ordered interim stay of dispossession.
The Tahsildar – first respondent herein – filed counter affidavit. The writ petition is opposed alleging that the petitioners suppressed the relevant facts and that the petitioners are not in possession of the land. It is also stated that subsequent to orders of LRAT after following the procedure the subject land has been taken over possession on 08.03.1989 and the same was distributed to landless poor persons during the year 2001.
The petitioners filed reply affidavit reiterating the writ petition averments with a little more elaboration. They also denied the allegation that the land has been distributed to landless poor persons.
Counsel for the petitioners and Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area) made their submissions. After hearing the Counsel, two issues need to be adjudicated. Whether the petitioners were in possession of the land as on the date of filing of the writ petition and whether they have cause of action to file the writ petition.
It is the case of the respondents that the petitioners filed the suit for injunction on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Pathapatnam, that the same, being O.S.No.27 of 1996, filed against the State of Andhra Pradesh and revenue Officials was dismissed on 12.04.1999, that the civil Court found that the petitioners were not in possession of the land and that the petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands. Assistant Government Pleader has placed before this Court a copy of the judgment in O.S.No.27 of 1996. Regarding possession the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pathapatnam, recorded finding which is as below.
Finally I want to repeat that I have already decided the first issue by so stating that this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit because of the bar under Section 26 of the A.P.Land Reforms (COAH) Act 1973 and as it is established that the order of the Tribunal in accepting the surrender of 4th defendant is became final and in pursuance of the said order the third defendant took possession of the schedule property on 08.03.1989 as per Exs.B5 to B7 and as the suit is filed two days after that i.e., 10.03.1989 I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiffs were not in possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties as on the date of filing of the suit and on that ground also, they are not entitled for any equitable relief of permanent injunction.
It is well settled that the remedy under Article 226 is a discretionary remedy. So as to avail the same, a person must place the entire factual background and all the documents to enable the Court to exercise public law jurisdiction properly. Any suppression of the facts would disentitle the person to seek any relief. In this case the petitioners have approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing the relevant finding recorded by the competent civil Court. Therefore, applying the principle of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Further, the finding recorded by the civil Court in O.S.No.27 of 1996 operates as res judicata and the petitioners cannot be heard to say that they are in possession of the land as on the date of filing of the writ petition. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that they have a cause of action to file the writ petition.
The Writ Petition is devoid of any merits, and is accordingly dismissed with costs.
(V.V.S.RAO, J) 29.06.2010 vs