ANUMOLU SRINIVASA RAO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 29.10.2014 principally on the grounds that the petitioner, being the husband of Anumolu Srilakshmi, is the natural guardian and, without his consent, application under Section 14 of the National Trust For The Welfare Of Persons With Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation And Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (in short "Act 44 of 1999") is not maintainable, especially on account of the provision under Section 14 (2) of Act 44 of 1999. In response to the notice received on 18.10.2014 from the 4 th respondent, the petitioner filed a detailed representation on 01.11.2014 and the hearing was fixed on 27.10.2014, but no hearing took place on that day. As the petitioner did not have the opportunity of making his submissions, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Smt. Anumolu Srilakshmi, who is the wife of the petitioner, is not a mentally retarded person, though she may be with slow mental reflexes and there is no determination which is made that she is a mentally retarded person. The impugned order does not record any reasons and as such unsustainable. The action of appointing a guardian amounts to appointment of Court Guardian which is outside the scope of the powers under Act 44 of 1999.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 3 have filed counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent, it has been categorically stated that Smt. Anumolu Srilakshmi is no other than her elder sister, and the petitioner himself is the son of her paternal uncle. Petitioner being addicted to vices had got executed a power of attorney in his name and alienated vast extent of properties of Smt.Anumolu Srilakshmi in collusion with his sister. The petitioner is not taking care of Smt. Anumolu Srilakshmi. It is further averred that herself and her sister by themselves have vast properties and she has no reason to seek her sister's properties and she is only interested in her sister and protect sister's properties from the clutches of the petitioner. The allegation that the petitioner was not given opportunity is far from truth and the enquiry was conducted by the 4 th respondent -Mandal Revenue Officer, Kankipadu Mandal and the same is evidenced by video recording made, and the petitioner participated in the enquiry. Though the petitioner claims to be the natural guardian of Smt. Anumolu Srilakshmi, he himself has turned into an enemy and every action of his is inimical to Smt. Anumolu Srilakshmi.

(3.) DURING the life time of their grandmother viz., Smt. Lakshmi Vanajakashamma, their grandmother has executed a gift deed in favour of Smt. Anumolu Srilakshmi with respect to the properties situated in R.S.No.190/1 to an extent of Ac.1 -20 cents, R.S.No.192/1 to an extent of Ac.0 -81 cents, R.S.No.192/2 to an extent of Ac.0 -84 cents and R.S.No.192/4 to an extent of Ac.1 -15 cents and in all an extent of Ac.4 -00 cents and another land in R.S.No.111/4 in an extent of Ac.1 -26 cents. It is further contended that her sister Smt. Anumolu Srilakshmi does not know how to read and write but she was only trained by the petitioner and his sister to sign her name and taking advantage of her innocence the properties of Smt. Anumolu Srilakshmi were grabbed by the petitioner and his sister by getting executed a General Power of Attorney dated 24.02.2012. It is further submitted that basing on the said GPA the petitioner approached VGTM UDA for getting approval of a layout plan for the aforementioned land in Ac.4 -00 cents and got obtained L.P.No.28/2014 Punadipadu village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District and divided the land into plots and mortgaged required number of plots to VGTM UDA in order to obtain layout plan for the land. In the mean while the petitioner necked out her sister Anumolu Sri Lakshmi from his house. On coming to know about the cheating committed by the petitioner, they got published a notice in Eenadu Telugu Daily on 05.08.2014 informing the public that the transactions, if any, done by petitioner are invalid and the public was warned against such sale transactions. However, the petitioner sold the entire property to 33 persons and pocketed an amount of Rs.5 crores, apart from his sister Velagapudi Madhavi got a sale registered in favour of her son Velagapudi Raja Chand to an extent of another Ac.1 -26 cents.