ANANTULA NARAYANA Vs. GOVT. OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the order issued by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms. No.47, dated 29.06.2007 confirming the orders passed in C.M.A.No.45/99, dated 06.05.2001 by the 2nd respondent and order passed by the 3rd respondent in case No.171/94/PVC, dated 16.07.1998 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 gts in Sy.No.150/16, situated at Yanambili (Village), Paloncha Mandal, Khammam District, purchased from the 5th respondent, who is Non-Tribe vide Sada sale agreement dated 22.01.1969 for valuable consideration. Since the date of purchase, the name of the petitioner is shown in revenue records. That the 5th respondent gave a complaint dated 22.11.1993 to the 3rd respondent stating that the petitioner occupied the subject property illegally. That the 3rd respondent initiated proceedings under A.P (SA)LTR 1959 r/w 1 of 1970 against the petitioner. That the petitioner could not attend the enquiry as he has was not informed about the date of hearing and that without providing an opportunity of hearing, ejection order dated 16.07.1998 was passed by the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent, which was also dismissed on 06.05.2001. Against the same, the petitioner filed revision before the 1st respondent, which was also rejected on 29.06.2007. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

(3.) Counter affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent stating that the sale agreement dated 22.01.1969 relied on by the petitioner is not valid in the eye of law. The said document is not supported by entries in revenue records and that the entries in revenue records are different in ink and hand writing and same have not been produced before the primary authority. It is stated that the petitioner was issued notice and he was present on 24.03.2007 before the 1st respondent. It is stated that since petitioner violated the provisions of the Act, proceedings were initiated and same were upheld by the appellate authority and revisional authority.