HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT Writ Petition No. 15608 of 2008 Date: 12.06.2014 Between:
Sri Munuswamy and 5 others.
…Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Secretary, Hyderabad and 3 others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT Writ Petition No. 15608 of 2008 O R D E R:
The petitioners, represented by the General Power of Attorney, have filed this writ petition for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in trying to dispossess them from the agricultural land covered by Sy.No.411/11, 8R Settipalli Village, No.26R, Mangala Group, Tirupathi Urban Mandal without following the procedure stipulated by law as illegal and unconstitutional.
The case of the petitioners is that their forefathers acquired different extents of land and are in possession since time immemorial and were doing agriculture. Upon demise of predecessors in interest, petitioners claim to have got title and possession to the petition land and are continuously doing agriculture. The petitioners through agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 26.09.2006 agreed to sell the land, appointed one K.Venkata Rmana as their General Power of Attorney. While the matter stood thus, the grievance is that on 11.07.2008 the 4th respondent supported by his staff came to the petition land and directed the petitioners to vacate forthwith. It is stated that though the actual vacation of petition land has not taken place, the petitioners being poor are apprehending further high handed action at the hands of 4th respondent. Hence, filed the writ petition for the relief stated supra.
This Court protected through interim order dated 23.07.2008, the alleged possession of petitioners. The 4th respondent filed a petition to vacate the interim order dated 23.07.2008.
Heard Sri P.Hemchandra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader.
Learned counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance on the documents in support of his case and the alleged grievance of dispossession at the hands of 4th respondent.
Before adverting to the stand taken by the 4th respondent, it is necessary to appreciate the documents on which the petitioners are claiming title and possession to petition land.
(1) The registered agreement of sale-cum-Power of Attorney dated 26.09.2006 in favour of one K.Venkata Ramana. The instant document, firstly, is an agreement of sale and secondly, is self-serving document and does not independently establish the title/possession of petitioners to the petition land.
(2) The other documents are cist receipts standing in the name of one of the petitioners or predecessor in interest of petitioners 1 to 4. The cist receipts, on their own, do not further the case of petitioners for, and secondly, it does not contain the subject survey number. Thirdly, the certified copy of Adangal stated to have been issued by the then Village Munsif and Karanam was as early as 05.04.1978. This Adangal is a solitary document. It cannot, on its own, be accepted for the purpose of accepting the case of petitioners either on the question of title or possession. By and large, the petitioners have not placed before the Court the document which establishes title of petitioners.
Be that as it may, in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the land covered by Sy.No.411/11 measuring Acs.6.32 guntas was not subjected to tenure settlement and no ryotwari patta was issued to any person. The land is lying vacant and from the beginning vested with the Government. There is hardly any trace of cultivation, much less, possession of petitioners on the subject land. The matter was pending before the Commissioner and Director of Settlement. The Government, with a view to provide house sites under the schemes implemented by the Government, decided to acquire the petition land. The proposals were also accepted by the Government.
According to the tenor of the counter affidavit, the subject land is ‘Assessed Waste Dry’. Neither the petitioners nor their predecessors in interest have semblance of right and title. Considering the case, either from the perspective of petitioners’ averments/documents or by reference to the reply filed by the respondents, this Court has no difficulty in concluding that the petitioners do not have title or possession to the petition land. Consequently, the grievance stated in the writ petition that the respondents are trying forcibly dispossess them is without substance.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
S.V.Bhatt,J Date: 12.06.2014 KLP