Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Gottumukkala Rama Devi - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10952 of 2021
Decided On : 09-07-2021
LAND ASSIGNMENT - ANDHRA PRADESH RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASS BOOKS ACT - SECTION 5, RULE 19(1) - MANDATORY DISPOSAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR MUTATION OF LAND RECORDS - DELAY IN PROCESSING APPLICATIONS - COURT DIRECTS DISPOSAL WITHIN FOUR WEEKS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, claiming ownership of agricultural land, filed a writ petition alleging inaction by revenue authorities in not issuing pattadar pass books and mutating her name in revenue records despite applications submitted through Meeseva. The authorities claimed the land was classified as "Puntha Poramboke" and that the petitioner was not in possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had submitted applications for mutation of her name in revenue records through Meeseva, which were required to be disposed of within 30 working days as per the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act and Rules. However, the applications were kept pending for more than two years without any action or endorsement.
Issues: 1. Whether the inaction of revenue authorities in not disposing of applications for mutation of land records within the prescribed time frame is illegal and arbitrary? 2. Whether the petitioner has established her possession and enjoyment of the disputed land as on the date of filing the writ petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the inaction of revenue authorities in keeping the petitioner's applications pending for more than two years without any justifiable cause is arbitrary and illegal. The authorities are under an obligation to dispose of such applications within the prescribed time frame and follow the procedure laid down under the Act and Rules. 2. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish her possession and enjoyment of the disputed land as on the date of filing the writ petition. The evidence provided, such as cultivation account and adangal records, was insufficient to prove actual possession. The court noted that the possession of the land was in dispute and advised the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief.
Final Decision: The court directed the revenue authorities to dispose of the petitioner's applications for mutation of land records and sub-division of land within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The court rejected the petitioner's request to restrain the authorities from interfering with her possession of the land, as the possession was disputed and required determination by a Civil Court.
JUDGMENT
1. One Gottumukkala Rama Devi, filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 3 and 4 in not issuing pattadar pass books duly mutating her name in the Revenue Records in spite of applications which are pending for consideration and further action of the respondents in unduly interfering with the possession and threatening to dispossess from her agricultural land in an extent of Ac.0.30cts in Sy.No.255 Jakkampudi village, Vijayawada Rural Krishna District is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the procedure established under Law while directing the respondents not to interfere and dispossess the petitioner from her land of an extent of Ac.0.30 cts in Sy.No.255 Jakkampudi village, Vijayawada Rural Krishna District.
2. The case of the petitioner in precise is that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the agriculture land of an extent of Ac.0.30 cents situated in Sy.No.255, Jakkampudi Village, Vijayawada Rural, and the same was assigned to her by granting D-Form patta by the then Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar vide proceedings RCB.No.428/2003 dated 15.03.2004. Since then, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property cultivating the same raising different crops, eking out her livelihood. The petitioner is paying land revenue to the revenue department for the subject land.
3. The name of the petitioner is mutated in the revenue records in the coloumn provided for possession and cultivation in the Adangal/Pahani. Thus, the Adangal/Pahani is sufficient to establish her possession and enjoyment.
4. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner approached respondent No.3 for issue of pattadar pass book and title deed while requesting to mutate her name in the revenue records regarding her possession and enjoyment by submitting an application in the year 2018 and 2019 through Meeseva. But the applications were not disposed of by respondent No.3 in accordance with law. When the petitioner made a request personally to dispose of the application submitted through Meeseva and survey is required to be conducted for issue of Pattadar passbook in her favour.
5. Respondent No.4 under the guise of verification, issued notice dated 08.02.2019 to the petitioner, informing that on the basis of application for mutation of her name in the revenue records, the Tahsildar, Vijayawada Rural, verified the records, found that as per revenue records, the land in an extent of Ac.0.39 cents in Sy.No.255 is classified as “Puntha Poramboke”, NH5 (Bypass) road is laid in the said land, and also informed the petitioner to apply for sub-division duly making an application through Meeseva and that after due verification of records, more particularly assignment register, the patta RCB 428/2003 dated 15.03.2004, pattadar pass book would be issued in accordance with law.
6. On receipt of such information, the petitioner submitted another application dated 03.07.2018 through Meeseva for conducting survey. Accordingly, surveyor confirmed the earlier survey, submitted a report again stating that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land of an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.255 of Jakkampudi village and demarcated the extent in the plan and left over Ac.0.09 cents out of total extent of Ac.0.39 cents, issued survey report with demarcation of the subject property in Sy.No.255.
7. Respondent No.3 informed the petitioner that patta will be granted on verification of survey report based on the revenue records. The petitioner is roaming around the office continuously, but respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not take any action without any justifiable or reasonable cause, but protracting the proceedings unduly for no reason. Therefore, the respondents disowned their duty in disposing of the applications of the petitioner submitted through Meeseva.
8. While the matter stood
AI
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
