Dwaram Raghavi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Battu Devanand, J

Heard the respective counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents and perused the material available on record.

The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 is the only daughter of petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.2 is wife of late Dwaram Madan Mohan Reddy, who is the elder son of late Dwaram Rami Reddy. The husband of Petitioner No.2 died in the year 2005. Prior to the death of her husband, his father namely Dwaram Rami Reddy partitioned his properties situated at Maddur Village, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District, through unregistered partition deed among his two sons namely Dwaram Madam Mohan Reddy and D.V. Sudhakar Reddy i.e., Respondent No.7 herein. Accordingly, they are enjoying their respective shares.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.7 and his son namely Dwaram Venkata Ram Reddy, who is a Government Employee, influenced the Revenue Officials by producing fabricated documents and got mutated his name in the revenue records contrary to the partition deed. The said mutation was cancelled by the Joint Collector, Kurnool, by Order in Rc.No.D5/54/2018, dated 26.05.2018, reversing the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District, dated 10.11.2017. It is submitted that respondent No.7 and his son filed W.P.No.24698 of 2018 before this Court seeking to set aside the order of the Joint Collector, dated 26.05.2018. This Court by Order dated 18.07.2018 disposed of the said Writ Petition remanding the matter back to respondent No.4 therein and directed respondent No.4 to afford fair and equal opportunity to petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Learned counsel further submitted that the Tahsildar, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District, vide Proceedings in Rc.No.B/287/2016, dated 07.01.2019, altered the entries in the pattadar passbooks of the son of Respondent No.7 and issued fresh pattadar passbooks in equal share among respondent No.7 and the petitioners herein and since then, the petitioners and respondent No.7 are enjoying their respective shares from the property of late Dwaram Rami Reddy.

Learned counsel further submitted that out of the property of Dwaram Rami Reddy, one house property bearing No.1-75 ( old House No.1-63) situated at Maddur Village, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District, which is still standing on the name of late Dwaram Rami Reddy since 1986, is under the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. After his death, the petitioners succeeded the same being legal heirs. The said house is in dilapidated condition. Petitioner No.2 recently went to meet her daughter and shocked on seeing that respondent No.7 herein occupied the said house illegally and made his close relative namely Ganapam Gopal Reddy to stay in the said house. The petitioner made a police complaint against respondent No.7 and his relative in the Panyam Police Station, Kurnool District. After noticing that respondent No.7 is not having any right over the said house, initially the police advised respondent No.7 and his relative to vacate the premises, but later the police did not take any steps due to influence of respondent No.7.

It is further submitted that respondent No.7 influenced respondent No.4 and got mutated his name in gram panchayat records in respect of house bearing No.1-75 ( Old house No.1-63) situated at Maddur Village, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District. Subsequently, respondent No.7 made an application in the name of his father late Dwaram Rami Reddy, vide application bearing No.SNLC012001452702, dated 21.09.2020, through online at Meeseva Centre, Panyam Village, to respondent No.6, requesting to mutate the name of respondent No.7 and to change of owner name in respect of Electric Meter Service number of the said house. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 without conducting any enquiry straight away considered the application of respondent No.7 and mutated his name on 23.09.2020 in respect of the said house. Finally, learned counsel argued that mutation of online record in respect of the house bearing No.1-75 ( old House No.1-63) situated at Maddur Village, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District, in the name of Respondent No.7 in the place of late Dwaram Rami Reddy in collusion with respondent Nos. 4 to 6 is illegal and without following the procedure. The petitioners made complaints dated 30.09.2020, 01-10-2020 and 28-12-2020 to respondent Nos. 1 to 6 requesting to delete the entries made in the name of respondent No.7 in the place of late Dwaram Rami Reddy. Petitioner No.1 made an application dated 29.12.2020 under Right to Information Act to the Public Information Officer/Panchayat Secretary, Maddur, seeking certain information, but he did not furnish the same. She preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority/E.O.R.D., Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District. In spite of that, the respondents did not take any steps to delete the name of respondent No.7. Under these circumstances, having no other option, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners filed memo of proof of service of Notice to Respondent No.7 vide USR No.42658/2021, dated 23.08.2021. It appears, in spite of service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of respondent No.7.

A Counter Affidavit has been filed by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Respondent No.4 also filed Additional Counter Affidavit. It is averred in the Counter Affidavit of respondent No.4 that by considering the representations of the petitioners, respondent No.4 issued Notice dated 17.03.2021 to Respondent No.7 asking him to be present at 11.00 am on 25.03.2021 with all documents reflecting his title in respect of the subject house. The said notice was also sent to the petitioners. In pursuance of the said notice, respondent No.7 appeared in person and produced a copy of the Will dated 26.04.1986 said to have been executed by his father. His statement was recorded. Petitioner No.2 also submitted her explanation on 26.03.2021 to the Notice dated 17.03.2021. In the meantime, since the petitioners have approached this Court, respondent No.4 did not take any decision in as much as the matter is ceased before this Court. It is further averred that respondent No.7 has stated that his name was mutated in the revenue records during the year 2012, whereas the present Officer, who is working as Panchayat Secretary, joined in that post on 16.11.2018.

Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record including the averments made in the counter affidavits, it appears that respondent No.4 on consideration of the representations submitted by the petitioners with respect to the illegal mutation of name of respondent No.7 in respect of house No.1-75 ( Old House No.1-63) at Maddur Village, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District, issued Notice dated 17.03.2021 to the petitioners and respondent No.7. Respondent No.7 appeared before respondent No.4 on 25.03.2021 and produced a copy of the Will dated 26.04.1986 said to have been executed by his father. Petitioner No.2 also submitted his explanation dated 26.03.2021. It is the contention of respondent No.4 that in view of the fact that the petitioners filed this Writ Petition in the meanwhile, he could not take further decision in this matter. As respondent No.4 is contemplating to take action on the representations submitted by the petitioners with respect to the present issue and enquiry is pending before respondent No.4, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition without going into the merits of the case, directing respondent No.4 to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by following due process of law pursuant to the Notice dated 17.03.2021 issued to the petitioners and respondent No.7 to meet the interest of justice.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4. to complete the enquiry pursuant to the Notice dated 17.03.2021 and take a final decision by following due process of law within a period of Four(04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.