BHARATHI P Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a declaration declaring the action of tht respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners' property over an extent of Acs. 1.20 cents in Survey No. 479/1 of Tirupati Village Accounts, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor Dist. and proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 17-5-97 handing over the lano to the Police department and the action of respondents 5 to 9 in demolishing the compound wall and causing damage to a tune of rupees one lakh to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary etc. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The petitioners purchased Acs. 1.20 cents in S.No.479/1 of Tirupati Village Accounts under various sale-deeds dated 23-1-95, 5-1-97, 5-2-97, 29-3-97 and 13-3-97. This land purchased by the petitioners forms part of an extent of Ac.1.50 cents which was originally assigned in favour of Ex. Serviceman A.V. Balakrishna Reddy on 9-9-1978. He continued in possession pursuant to the said assignment. In 1994, A.V. Balakrishna Reddy wanted to alienate the property as ten years period had already expired from the date of assignment. Accordingly, he sold the property in favour of the first petitioner and also in favour of Sri C. Raja Reddy, V. Jagadish, Smt. G. Madhura Vani and also in favour of the second petitioner. Sale-deeds were presented to the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of registration, but the Sub-Registrar refused to register the same on the ground that the said property was Government land and it cannot be alienated. Therefore the said A.V. Balakrishna Reddy filed Writ Petition No. 19372/94 on the file of this Court impleading the District Collector, Chittoor and also the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Urban Mandal as respondents 1 and 2. The said writ petition was allowed on 21-12-94. Pursuant to the judgment in the said writ petition, A.V. Balakrishna Reddy executed registered saledeeds in favour of the petitioners and also in favour of C. Raja Reddy, V. Jagadish and G. Madhura Vani. The petitioners 1 and 2 thereafter intended to sell the land in favour of the petitioners 3 to 5 and certain others. The registering authority raised similar objection and therefore, the petitioners issued a notice on 8-1-96 requesting the Sub-Registrar to furnish the market value enabling the petitioners to register the documents in favour of the third parties which was again refused. Thereafter, the petitioners filed W.P.No. 5311/96 on the file of this Court impleading the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Urban Mandal. The said writ petition was allowed on 13-11-1996. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 5311/96, registered saledeeds were executed in favour of petitioners 3 to 5. When one of the purchasers namely G. Madhuravani sought permission for construction of a house, the Tirupati Municipality refused to consider her application and she filed W.P.No. 13605/95 and obtained interim directors in W.P.M.P.No. 16617/95 dated 23-8-1995 to consider the application submitted by her for permission to construct the house without reference to the proceedings dated 22-5-1995 in which an objection was raised that the land is Government land. Thereafter, the 5th respondent Mandal Revenue Officer issued proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. in M.C.No. 26/97. The petitioners filed Criminal Petition No. 824/97 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the said proceedings which was admitted and interim stay was also granted for a period of ten weeks and the said matter is pending disposal. The petitioners constructed small sheds and compound wall protecting the property and dug a bore well and installed an Electric Motor containing service connection No. 40319. While so, on 23-5-1997 at about 12 noon, respondents 5 to 9 namely Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Urban Mandal; Superintendent of Police, Chittoor; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirupati; Circle Inspector of Police, Tirupati Rural area and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirupati came to the property and placed a Board stating that the said land belongs to Police Department and trespassers will be prosecuted. The petitioners protested the action of respondents 5 to 9. Again on 24-5-97 the 9th respondent came along with his subordinates and began demolishing the Eastern side of the compound wall causing damage to a tune of Rs. One lakh. The petitioners approached the concerned authorities protesting against the action of respondents 5 to 9 and submitted that S.No. 479/1 in an extent of Acs.1.20 cents, is a private land belonging to the petitioners and the action of the respondents is without authority of law. However, no action is taken by the concerned authorities. Further, the 4th respondent issued proceedings in Roc. No. B6/5974/97 dated 17-5-97 under which the Mandal Revenue Officer was permitted to handover the land covered by Survey No. 479/1 of Tirupati village to the Police Department for safeguarding the land. The said proceedings are without authority of law and illegal and are liable to be quashed.

(2.) The respondents in the counter-affidavit stated that the petitioners are not the absolute owners of land measuring Acs.1.20 cents in S.No. 479/1 of Tirupati village. The said land is Government Poramboke land classified 'Chakalivani Gunta'. It is not a Patta land. The land does not belong to A.V. Balakrishna Reddy. According to Village accounts S.No. 479/1 in an extent of Acs.2,80 cents is classified as Government Poramboke land, locally as Chakalavani gunta and the same entries are continued to reflect even today and no D.K.T. Patta No.681/4/138 dated 9-9-1978 was granted in favour of A.V. Balakrishna Reddy but it is a forged document. Taking advantage of the conditions mentioned in G.O.Ms.No. 1117, Revenue (Assignment-1) Department dated 11-11-93 stipulating that an Ex-serviceman can alienate the D.K.T. Patta after expiry of ten years from the date of grant one A.V. Balakrishna Reddy prepared forged document and managed to place the file in the records of Mandal Revenue Officer, Chandragiri. When this fact was noticed and the endeavour of A.V. Balakrishna Reddy was effectively opposed, he approached the High Court and filed W.P.No. 19372/96. A Civil Suit O.S.No. 141/95 in respect of S.No. 479/1 was filed by one T. Siddaiah and others against A.V. Balakrishna Reddy and the said suit is pending on the file of Prl. Dist. Munsif, Tirupati and A.V. Balakrishna Reddy is restrained by I.A.No. 466/95 in O.S.No. 141/95. In respect of this land there is law and order problem for assignment of house sites to different persons. They admitted that the said land was handedover to the Police Department under proceedings dated 17-5-1997 by the Dist. Collector, Chittoor for safeguarding the Government land. They have admitted filing of writ petition and directions issued by this Court. Further, the claim that A.V. Balakrishna Reddy was granted D.K.T. Patta was false as from the records, Tahsildar, Chandragiri granted a lease of Acs.1.50 cents in S.No. 479/1 in favour of G. Gopala Naidu on an application filed on 6-3-1978 before the Tahsildar Chandragiri. After holding an enquiry the Tahsildar granted lease to the said G. Gopala Naidu dated 15-12-1978. In view of the lease granted to G. Gopala Naidu the claim that A.V. Balakrishna Reddy was granted D.K.T. Patta is false.

(3.) The fact that D.K.T. patta granted to the said A.V. Balakrishna Reddy is forged one is evident from the fact that condition No. 2 stipulated in the D-form has been incorporated with reference to G.O.No. 1142, Revenue dated 19-6-1981, whereas the claim of the original vendor A.V. Balakrishna Reddy is that he was granted D.K.T. patta on 9-9-1978. Further, the said A.V. Balakrishna Reddy withdrew the W.P.No. 9189/94 on his own accord which was filed challenging interference of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati and other Revenue Officials with regard to the possession and enjoyment of S.No. 479/1 of Tirupati. Since the original vendor himself has no title to the property, the present writ petitioners do not get any title to the property. In view of the above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.