AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. B.M.Patro and B.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Dr. Juttukonda Vijaya Laxmi, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) for the respondents.
Since the prayer sought for in these two writ petitions is similar they are being disposed of by this common order.
These writ petitions have been filed questioning the action of the respondents in not issuing D-Form Patta in favour of the petitioners to an extent of land admeasuring Acs.5.00 guts., in Sy.No.668 of Chennapuram, Jawaharnagar Grampanchayat, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and Acs.5.00 gts., in Sy.No.12/P of Jawaharnagar village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, respectively, and threatening to dispossess the petitioners from the said land and threatening to demolish the hous raise in the said land vide H.No.17-136/72, without following due process of law as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to issue D-Form Patta in favour of the petitioners to their respective lands.
Brief facts of the case in W.P. No.5470 of 2014 are that the father of the petitioner late N.Rajalingam was an Ex-Serviceman and was a member of Jawaharnagar Land Colonisation Society. It is submitted that his father was in possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Acs.5.00 gts., in Sy.no.668 and Acs.2.20 gts., in Sy.No.669 of Jawaharnagar village, which was exclusively meant for allotment of Ex-Servicemen, from 1960 onwards and pursuant admitting into the Society, the JLC Society regularised the possession and allotted the land to an extent of Acs.5.00 guts., in favour of the father of the petitioner. Subsequent to the death of the father of the petitioner in the year 1971, his mother Smt.Ratnamma was in possession and enjoyment of the same till her death in 1988 and thereafter, the petitioner being the legal heir of his parents, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land till date. It is further submitted that pursuant to allotment of the land, the precedessors of the petitioner developed the said land to suit for cultivation and invested their life earnings on hope of getting livelihood from the said land and after the death of his father, Ryoth Pass Book was also issued in the name of his mother and she regularly paid the land revenue in terms of the notice given by the revenue authorities and her name was also recorded in the revenue records including pahani patrikas. It is submitted that the petitioner had also taken electricity connection and constructed a Farm house on the said land and the Grampanchayat had also allotted a house number bearing H.No.17-136/72.
It is further submitted that in terms of the policy decision of the Government, the 3rd respondent conducted enquiry in 1979 itself and recommended the names of the individuals for assignment of the land vide proceedings No.B6/196/76, dated 05.08.1979 and in the said recommended list, the name of the petitioner’s mother was at Sl.No.236. Inspite of the said recommendation and several representations of the predecessors of the petitioner to issue D-Form patta, the revenue authorities have not issued the same. Questioning the action of the revenue authorities in not issuing patta certificates, some of the Ex-Servicemen or their LRs filed batch of writ petitions being W.P. Nos.3912 of 1992, 5412 of 2004 etc., and the said writ petitions were disposed of vide common order dated 25.03.2004 directing the respondent authorities to conduct enquiry and issue D-Form Pattas to eligible Ex-Servicemen. In view of the said common order, the case of the petitioner needs to be considered in terms of the said order for issuance of D-Form Patta to the petitioner on behalf of his father.
While the matter stood thus, the officials of the 3rd respondent, with the help of the staff of the 4th respondent, without issuing any notice and any reason, visited the petitioner’s agricultural land on 20th February, 2014 and tried to demolish the farm house and trying to dispossess the petitioner from the said land on the ground that the land in question in Sy.No.668 is handed over to the 4th respondent. However, on vehement protest and resistance by the petitioner and other neighbours the staff of 3rd and 4th respondents withdrawn from the site and threatened that they will come at any time and demolish the house and dispossess the petitioner from the said land in Sy.No.668 at any cost as no one has any right to construct the house and occupy the Government land handed over to the 4th respondent. It is submitted that the respondents may visit the site at any time and dispossess the petitioner from the land in question and demolish the house therein.
It is specifically submitted that the Government has never resumed the subject land from the Society since its allotment was in the year 1952 as such question of allotment or handing over of land in question to the 4th respondent does not arise. It is submitted that the petitioner was in possession of the land for more than fifty years including the possession of his predecessors. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Brief facts of the case in W.P. No.6300 of 2014 are that the father of the petitioner, late Odupu Nageshwar Rao, a landless poor person, was in possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Acs.5.00 gts., in Sy.no.12/P of Jawaharnagar village, from 1960 onwards and pursuant admitting into the Society, the JLC Society regularised the possession and allotted the land to an extent of Ac.5.00 gts., in favour of his father. Subsequent to the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner being his natural son is in possession and enjoyment of the same to till date. It is submitted that pursuant to allotment of the land, the predecessor of the petitioner developed the said land to suit for cultivation, dug the bore well and taken electricity connection by investing his life earnings on hope of getting livelihood from the said land. It is submitted that Ryoth Pass Book was also issued in favour of his father and he regularly paid the land revenue to the revenue authorities and thereafter, the petitioner cultivated paddy and a mango garden and a Farm house was raised on the said land. It is further submitted that in terms of the policy decision of the Government, the 2nd respondent issued a proceeding dated 01.08.1979 wherein it is specifically stated that after allotment of land to ex-servicemen the remaining land has to be allotted to the landless poor persons of the locality. Since the petitioner as well as the father of the petitioner are landless poor persons of the locality of Jwaharnagar village, they made several representations for issuance of D-Form patta. However, the revenue authorities have not issued the same till date. It is further submitted that questioning the action of the revenue authorities in not issuing patta certificates, some of the landless poor persons and ex-servicemen filed a batch of writ petitions being W.P. Nos.3912 of 1992 and batch and the same were disposed vide common order dated 25.03.2004 directing the respondent authorities to consider the request of the petitioners for assignment of the land in their possession in terms of the policy. In view of the common order dated 25.03.2004, the petitioner’s case needs to be considered in terms of the said order for issuance of D-Form patta.
While the matter stood thus, the officials of the 3rd respondent, with the help of the staff of the 4th respondent, without issuing any notice and any reason, visited the petitioner’s agricultural land on 20th February, 2014 and tried to demolish the farm house and dispossess the petitioner from the said land on the ground that the land in question in Sy.No.12/P is handed over to the 4th respondent. However, on vehement protest and resistance by the petitioner and other neighbours the staff of 3rd and 4th respondents withdrawn from the site and threatened that they will come at any time and demolish the house and dispossess the petitioner from the said land in Sy.No.12/P at any cost as no one has any right to construct the house and occupy the Government land handed over to the 4th respondent. It is submitted that the respondents may visit the site at any time and dispossess the petitioner from the land in question and demolish the house therein.
It is specifically submitted that the Government has never resumed the subject land from the Society since its allotment was in the year 1952 as such question of allotment or handing over of land in question to the 4th respondent does not arise. It is submitted that the petitioner was in possession of the land for more than fifty years including the possession of his predecessors. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
On behalf of the 3rd respondent, Tahsildar, while denying the writ averments, separate counter affidavits have been filed narrating the history of the subject land and inter alia, it is stated that the claim of the petitioners is not found in the list of eligible beneficiaries prepared by the then Tahsildar as against the subject survey numbers and they were never in possession at any point of time. It is further submitted that in respect of the certain encroachers, the State has filed LGC 235 & 6/1991 before the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act. The Special Court by common order dated 10.08.1994 found that the State is the owner of the property and the persons who are arrayed as respondent failed to establish that they are in possession and enjoyment of the land. The common order passed in aforesaid LGC cases, certain writ petitions were filed before this Court vide W.P.Nos.17234, 17235, 17512 and 17767 of 1994 at Division Bench of this Court by directing the authorities to consider the cases of the petitioner for assignment/regularisation. Under these circumstances, the writ petitions were disposed of. However, the State carried the matter in appeal vide SLP (Civil) No.5887-5890/2004. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to allow the SLP duly holding as under:
“Heard learned counsel for the parties.
These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 16.6.2000.
The facts in detail have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here.
Admittedly, the respondents are illegal encroachers on the government land. Hence, ordinarily, they have no right to remain on the said land unless there is a scheme by the government or some law made for regularization.
It is not for this Court to make such a scheme or law for regularization. It is only the concerned authorities or the concerned Legislature which can make such a scheme or law.
On the facts of the case, we substitute the impugned judgment of the High Court by this order which we are passing today.
We permit the respondents to make a representation within four weeks from today to the State Government praying for regularization and it is up to the State.
Government to accept the representation or not. If they accept the representation, the Government can fix the terms on which regularization will be done. If such a representation is moved within the aforesaid time of four weeks, the State Government shall decide the said representation within three months’ from the date of filing the said representation in accordance with law.
Till the disposal of the representation by the State Government, respondents shall not be dispossessed from the land on which they are in possession.
The Appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.”
It is further submitted that the petitioners were never in possession at any point of time and the subject land was allotted to APHB and at present Housing department has constructed Rajeev Swagruha Apartments to an extent of Acs.50.00 gutntas including subject land and therefore, the question of dispossession of the petitioners from the subject land does not arise. It is further submitted that W.P.No.16365 of 2004 was filed for grant of patta certificate etc., and this Court passed common order dated 25.03.2004 in W.P. No.3912 of 2004 and batch with a direction that
“It shall be open to all the ex-servicemen who are petitioners before this Court to appear before the mandal Revenue officer, Shamirpet Mandal on 15.04.2004 with a representation and necessary material with regard to the statues of Ex-Servicemen and with regard to possession and other particulars when the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamirpet may fix a date for proper enquiry and complete the enquiry within a period of two months thereafter.” Accordingly, the MRO conducted enquiry and disposed of all the representations including the petitioners. Eventually, it is submitted that the petitioners with mala fide intention filed the present writ petitions claiming that they are in possession of the subject property to usurp the valuable Government property. The writ petitions are filed and framed is misconceived and the same are liable to be dismissed.
On behalf of the respondent No.4, counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, stating that as per the directions of the Government, the revenue authorities have allotted a total extent of Acs.2370.25 guntas situated in various survey numbers of Jawaharnagar village in four spells in favour of HMDA for development and also for resource mobilization which also includes the subject lands and the said land was handed over to the HMDA on 30.12.2002 for the said purpose. Since then the HMDA is in absolute physical possession of the above said land till today and sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
The petitioners herein are claiming title and possession over the subject land. The petitioners are claiming that their predecessor’s names were there in the assignment as recommended by the 3rd respondent. However, it is submitted that they are in possession of the property and whereas the respondents submits that the land in question has been resumed and has been allotted to the respondent No.4 and the petitioners are not in possession of the subject property. Such disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated by this Court in these writ petitions on affidavits. However, it appears from the averments of the petitioners that the respondents are not issuing D-Form patta in favour of the petitioners in respect of the subject lands and it also appears that they are claiming for issuance of D-Form Pattas in view of the common order dated 25.03.2004 passed in W.P. Nos.3912 of 1995 and batch. It is pertinent to note here that no where it has been averred that they made any kind of application before any of the authorities concerned seeking to grant D-Form Pattas in view of the said common order dated 25.03.2004. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot pass any orders insofar as issuance of D-Form Pattas is concerned.
Insofar as the aspect of threatening to dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands and also threatening to demolish the houses stated to have been raised therein, it is trite law that person in possession cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yeshwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh AIR 1968 SC 620 in paragraph 10 quoted with approval the decision of Privy Council in Midnapur Zamindary Company Limited v. Naresh Narayan Roy AIR 1924 PC 144 and held that “in India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession; they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a court”.
Similarly, in paragraph 12 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Yar Mohammad v. Lakshmi Das ILR [1958] 2 All 394 at 404 and held as under:
“Law respects possession even if there is no title to support it. It will not permit any person to take the law in his own hands and to dispossess a person in actual possession without having recourse to a court. No person can be allowed to become a judge in his own cause.”
The decision in Yeshwant Singh (supra) was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITC Limited v. Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limited (2013) 10 SCC 169.
In view of the aforesaid well settled legal position which has been conceded to by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), the respondents are directed that no action for dispossession of the petitioners in the writ petitions shall be taken, except in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not recorded any finding whether or not the petitioners are in possession of the subject land of which they claim to be in occupation, as it being a question of fact.
With the aforesaid directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.