SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(AP) 437

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.BIKSHAPATHY, N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA
Yamunanagar Co-operative House Building Society, M.Lakshminarasaiah - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 04-30-97

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226, 124, 14 and 21 - Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1317 - Sections 172 and 166 - AP Muttas Regulation Act, 1969 - Sections 4 and 5 - A - P Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Section 50 - A - P Estates Act, 1948 - Sections 10 and 64 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 166 - Land Purchasing - Agriculture - It appears that second respondent also purchased some land situated around land purchased by petitioners - Some of them Ministers are also members of second respondent-Society - As members of second respondent-Society had position and influence trying to encroach land of petitioners on premise that survey authorities have located land in survey number assigned to them - To prevent said encroachment petitioner filed Writ petition and obtained interim order against second respondent not to disturb from possession - In spite of pendency of writ petition members of second respondent wielding their influence with Joint Collector got assignment made in favour of said cancelled - Then petitioners-Society filed another Writ Petition challenging acts and orders of Joint Collector - Held, While exercising powers authorities for any reason have come to a conclusion that there is dispute as to identity of properties or petitioner- society unauthorisedly encroached or grabbed Government land several courses are open for authorities to set right same instead of attempting to exercise powers which neither appreciable nor permissible under circumstances - authorities should not have been harped upon deciding on civil rights of parties - nature of proceedings initiated convince us that Government wanted to unsettle things which were settled long ago to decide civil rights of two private parties - When we found that action initiated is unjust illegal and without jurisdiction it is not proper once again to direct petitioner to appear and agitate correctness of earlier orders and other proceedings of Government which in fact on material produced by Government is bent upon to please others - order of Government though is in nature of interim order since powers sought to be exercised by Government are illegal and without jurisdiction allowing such an order to continue and compel parties to participate in such proceedings will not only cause great hardship but it amounts to circumvent earlier orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions and directions issued to do a particular act - Petition is allowed.

N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner had filed this writ petition originally seeking for the relief that writ of Certiorari may be issued to quash the Memo No. 101204/ asn. III (2)/90-2. dated 14-2-1992 issued by the first respondent. By way of amendment dated 28-3-1997 petitioner sought for further relief viz. to issue writ of Certiorari to quash the notice in Memo No. 101204 / Asn. III (2)/ 90, dated 22-8-1991 issued by the first respondent declaring it as illegal.

( 2 ) A few facts which are necessary to dispose of this writ petition, are as follows: the petitioner is a Co-operative House Building Society registered under the provisions of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act,1964. The petitioner and several others during the year 1979 purchased a portion of the land in survey no. 102 in Hakimpet village for valuable consideration from one Syed Ahmed nooruddin after obtaining necessary permission from Urban Land Ceiling authority. From the date of purchase, the petitioner is in occupation and possession of the area purchased by them. Earlier to the purchase the said nooruddin was granted Ac. 28-28 guntas of land in Survey No. 102 in Hakimpet village on payment of 16 times the land revenue under "laoni Rules" 1950 published in G. O. Ms. No. 62, dated 7-12-1957 issued under Section 172 of the a. P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act 1317 Fasli (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The said land was subdivided in the year 1957 into Survey nos. 102/2 and 102/3 and patta was mutated in the name of said Syed Ahmed nooruddin. The first respondent Government of A. P. delivered the said land to said Nooruddin in the year 1956 under a panchanama. After assignment the said Nooruddin was in possession of the land and cultivating the same. On 3-6-1965 the Government cancelled the said patta granted in favour of nooruddin without any notice to him. The said Syed Ahmed Nooruddin filed Writ Petition No. 1520 of 1970 before this Court. By an order dated 24-11-1971 this Court allowed the said writ petition quashing the Government order dated 3-6-1965 issued in G. O. Ms. No. 804 Revenue (Y) Department. Subsequent to the said order, the first respondent gave a notice to the said nooruddin to show cause why the patta should not be cancelled on the ground that assignment was not in accordance with circular No. 14 of 1954. The said syed Ahmed Nooruddin submitted his explanation. But the first respondent in proceedings dated 23-10-1976 in G. O. Rt. No. 2166 Revenue Department again cancelled the patta granted to the said Nooruddin. The same was challenged by the said Nooruddin before this Court in W. P. No. 3626 of 1976. This Court by an order dated 21-11-1977 quashed the said G. O. upholding the contention of Syed Ahmed Nooruddin that he is a purchaser of the land under Laoni Rules and that circular No. 14 of 1954 was not applicable in respect of the land in question. The Government by its Memo. No. 37900 V (i)/76-17, dated 7-6-1979 directed the Subordinate Revenue Authority to implement the orders of this Court passed on 21-11-1977. Accordingly, Tahsildar, khairatabad ordered mutation in favour of the said Syed Ahmed Nooruddin. Then the petitioner and others purchased and took possession of the said land.

( 3 ) THE second respondent-Society is also a Society registered under the provisions of A. P. Co-operative Societies Act,1964, whose members consist of only M. L. As. thus it called as M. L. As Society. It appears that the second respondent also purchased some land situated around the land purchased by the petitioners. Some of the then Ministers are also members qf the second respondent-Society. As the members of the second respondent-Society had position and influence trying to encroach the land of the petitioners on the premise that the survey authorities have located the land in the survey number assigned to them. To prevent the said encroachment, the petitioner filed Writ petition No. 120 of 1982 and obtained interim order again



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top