PAMIDI NAGA RAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an unfortunate case where petitioner was made to run from pillar to post for protecting his property to an extent of Ac.0.70 cents in Survey No. 83/2 of Pedanandipadu Village and Mandal, Guntur District, which he purchased through registered sale deed dated 10.03.1998. Originally, the subject land was allotted to Sri Sanka Seetharamaiah under freedom fighters quota on 25.03.1952, and he was in possession of the subject land till his demise. After his demise the petitioner purchased the subject land from his son and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same without any interference. While so, in the year 1998, when the 3rd respondent illegally encroached into the subject land, the petitioner filed OS.No.129 of 1998 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur District seeking permanent injunction against the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and also the A.P.State Housing Corporation from interfering with the petitioner's possession over the subject land. Though injunction was granted in favour of petitioner restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the subject land, the respondents completed the construction of police station in 4 cents of the subject land. When the petitioner resisted the highhanded action of the respondents, they implicated the petitioner in false criminal cases and remanded the petitioner into judicial custody. As the 3rd respondent has started construction by violating the order of temporary injunction, the petitioner was constrained to amend the plaint and sought relief of declaration of title as well as recovery of possession and the respondents 2 and 3 have contested the said suit and after full fledged trial the suit in OS.No.129 of 1998 was decreed in favour of petitioner vide Judgment and Decree dated 23.02.2004. Challenging the same, the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 filed appeal in AS.No.17/2004 and the same was dismissed vide Judgment and Decree dated 04.04.2009. Against the same the respondents filed Second Appeal No. 80/2010 before this Court and the same was also dismissed vide Judgment and Decree dated 07.07.2010. while dismissing the second appeal this Court was pleased to suspend the execution proceedings for six months and given liberty to the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings for the subject land. Basing on the said Judgment in the second appeal, the 2nd respondent issued Land Acquisition Notification in RC.No.4778/2010/G1, dated 01.01.2011, under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In pursuance of the notice issued under Sec. 5 A of the Act, the petitioner submitted objection under Sec. 5 A of the Act to the 2nd respondent. But, the 2nd respondent without considering the said objections published draft declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed WP.No.5672/2012 seeking to set aside the notification issued under Sec. 4(1) of the Act, 1894 and the same was allowed vide order dated 21.03.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent filed WA.No.914/2013 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 21.06.2013. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed Review Petition in Writ Appeal SR.No.101496/2013 and the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2013. While dismissing the same, this Court granted liberty to the 2nd respondent to file Review petition in WP.No.5975/2012. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has filed Review WP.MP.No.2292/2014 in WP.No.5975/2012 and this Court dismissed the same vide order dated 09.11.2016. During pendency of the writ petition referred to supra, when the police, Pedanandipadu tried to raise further construction in the subject land, the petitioner filed WP.No.6514/2013 and this Court vide order dated 05.03.2013 granted interim order directing the 2nd respondent not to raise any further constructions and also not to interfere in the balance extent of land i.e. 65 cents and also not to meddle with the subject land. While the things stood thus, the 2nd respondent has started dumping the construction material in the subject land and was taking steps for construction of buildings. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner was constrained to issue contempt notice dated 29.01.2017 to the 3rd respondent and two others. Inspite of the petitioner succeeding in Second Appeal and writ petitions stated supra and also interim order in another writ petition, the respondents have included the subject property in the list of prohibited properties made under Sec. 22 A (1) (b) of the Registration Act, 1908. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

(2.) The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit stating that as per RSR of 1919, the land in Survey No. 83/2 of Pedanandipadu Village, admeasuring Ac.0.70 cents was classified as Vagu (Vogeru Vagu), that due to frequent floods the land was covered with silt (clay); and that potter community had been using the clay in the land for manufacturing of the pots. Subsequently, the aforesaid land was classified as Assessed Waste Dry and popularly known as 'Kummarikunta' and that the Tahasildar, Ponnur vide his proceedings in R.Dis.No.3118/79/A3, dated 07.05.1983 had allotted the said land to the Police Department and the possession of the land was delivered to Inspector of Police, Ponnur on 08.05.1983. Later, the A.P.State Police Housing Corporation Limited had constructed police station in the said land. It is admitted that petitioner has filed OS.No.129/1998 for declaration of title and for mandatory injunction for removal of the constructions made in the subject land which was decreed in favour of petitioner and confirmed in Second Appeal No. 80/2010. It is also admitted that the land acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the subject land were quashed. It is further stated in the counter that in view of the orders passed in Second Appeal No. 80/2010, steps will be taken to delete the subject land in Survey No. 83/2 measuring an extent of Ac.0.70, from the list of prohibited properties prepared under Sec. 22-A (1) (b) of the Registration Act.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.