Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.V.RAMANA
S.Lingamaiah - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 01-09-04
Held : Petitioner has not only taken inconsistent pleas, but has himself made a candid admission that there is a serious dispute with respect to his title to the land. It is long well settled by a plethora of decisions that where there are serious disputes with respect to title of a property, this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India, does not decide such disputed questions, for such questions have to be decided upon leading of evidence by the contesting parties, and unless and until the contesting parties lead evidence in support of their respective claims, such disputed questions cannot be decided or gone into. Therefore, the remedy of the parties, if any, is to approach the competent civil court and get their title disputes to the property settled by leading evidence in support of their respective claims.
Petitioner has not chosen to respond to the show cause notice issued under Sec. 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, and kept quiet till the respondent-revenue authorities passed final orders for his summary eviction under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment act, and eventually the respondent-revenue authorities even evicted the petitioner from the land in question. It is required to notice that the petitioner has neither challenged the final notice nor the consequential action of the respondent-revenue authorities in evicting him from the land in question. In that view of the matter, this writ petition, which is filed assailing the show cause notice is not only not maintainable, but is also liable to be dismissed having regard to the developments that have taken place subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, which have been stated above. That apart, though against the impugned show cause notice, issued by the Mandal Revenue officer under Section 7 of the Land encroachment Act, the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of appeal, has not chosen to avail such a remedy, and in those circumstances, the respondent- authorities after passing final orders for summary eviction of the petitioner under section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, evicted the petitioner from the land in question, and on this ground also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
( 1 ) INVOKING the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, praying for the following reliefs:to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandmus declaring the Notice no. C/268/93, dated 2-9-1993, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, golconda, Hyderabad, as well as all further steps taken thereon, as illegal, null, void, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14,19,21 and 300- a of the Constitution of India and to set aside the same, and grant such other reliefs which the petitioner may ultimately be found to be entitled to, in the circumstances of the case. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE MATTER
( 2 ) IN the affidavit, filed along with the writ petition, it is stated by the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of an extent of ac. 1-20 guntas of dry land in Sy. No. 102/1 of hakeempet village, Golconda Mandal, hyderabad, in Ward No. 12, Block a , Town survey No. 14/1, that prior to him the said land was in the possession of his father and grandfather, that the source of title was lost in antiquity, and that he had perfected his title to the said land by adverse possession. The petitioner states that the Tahsildar, hyderabad, Urban Taluka, issued Pass book of Record of Rights, Land Revenue, on 29-5-1970, and since then he has been paying the land revenue to the Government and is in possession of the land ; revenue receipts for the period from 29-6-1972 to 16-11-1991 supported by entries in the ryotwari Pass Book, which according to him prove his long continuous uninterrupted possession.
( 3 ) WHILE so, on 2-9-1993, alleging that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of government land, a notice purported to be one under Section 7 of the A. P. Land encroachment Act, 1905 (for short the Land encroachment Act ) was issued calling the petitioner to show cause by 16-9-1993 as to why he should not be evicted from the land in his occupation. The petitioner claims to have submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice on 14-9-1993 enclosing the xerox copies of the documents possessed by him. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-revenue authorities without passing any orders on the explanation submitted by him, have sought to evict him from the land, which is enclosed by a compound wall and a temple by name maisamma Temple housed in it. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondent-revenue authorities in trying to dispossess him from the land in his occupation, is illegal and arbitrary, and thus sought for a direction or order, as aforesaid.
( 4 ) DURING the course of hearing of the writ petition, the petitioner filed a better affidavit stating that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring acs. 4-16 guntas in Sy. No. 102/1 of hakeempet village, Golconda Mandal, and prior to him his ancestors were in occupation of the said land for more than 100 years and were eking out their livelihood by cultivating the said land. According to the petitioner, the land in his occupation is squeezed between two Aillocks forming a valley through which water flows into the land of the petitioner. The petitioner states that a Maisamma temple is located in the land in occupation, and that one of the family members of the petitioner by name Smt. Sadamma was dedicated as Jogan to the said Maisamma temple.
( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, on the application filed by Smt. Sadamma, the then tahsildar and Collector in the regime of h. E. H. the Nizam, having recognized the status of Smt. Sadamma, as a Jogan of maisamma Temple, granted the land in question from the Surfekhas land to her in file No. 22, vide proceedings dated 13 Isfan- dah, 1355 Fasli i. e. in 1945, and the tahsildar and Patwari were also directed to make necessary entries in the registers, and since then the petitioner s family is in possession of the said land.
( 6 ) IT is fu
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
