M.CHANGAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare the action of the respondents in tying to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the agriculture land admeasuring Ac.3-00 cents in Sy.No.46-5, Varadaiahpalem Village and Mandal, Chittoor District, without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

(2.) The petitioner was assigned agricultural land in an extent of Ac.3-00 cents in Sy.No.46-5 of Varadaiahpalem Village and Mandal, Chittoor District, vide "Possession Certificate Proceedings" Rc.No.152/4/1408 dated 12.01.2008 and since then, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by raising paddy and other crops. The petitioner also raised Jeelugu plantation which is good as manure to raise paddy crop. The revenue department also issued Pattadar Passbook No.237 and Title Deed No.237 in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has been paying land revenue to the revenue department since 2008.

(3.) In the revenue records, the name of the petitioner was mutated in Form -1B which disclosed that the property was assigned to this petitioner by issuing D-Form Patta and Form-1B, obtained through website on 12.06.2019 at 17:59:56 from I.P. No.59:88:217:194. Though, the online entries are in favour of the petitioner, recently, subsequently they were removed from the website for the reason best known to the respondents. Further, the petitioner obtained pattadar adangal/pahani on 03.12.2014 which clearly shows that this petitioner is in possession of Ac.3-00 cents agricultural land in Sy.No.46-5 of Varadaiahapalem Village and Mandal and she is the D-Form Patta holder and possessor of the land. It is further contended that, Patta/Possession Certificate dated 12.01.2008 clearly shows that the land is assigned to the petitioner for the purpose of agriculture and the petitioner has no right to alienate the property in favour of any third parties. But, till date, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of D-Form Patta.