IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
G.Ramakrishna Prasad, J.
Mullagari Mohan Rajkumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 14638 of 2014
Decided On : 26-12-2023
Delay in Appeal - Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 - Sec. 2-A, retrospective application - Sec. 2-A cannot be applied retrospectively
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to set aside an order of the Commissioner of Appeals, which set aside a Ryotwari Patta granted in 1983 for a land claimed by the Writ Petitioners. The land was originally granted in 1677 and had been subject to several private transactions. The District Collector filed an Appeal against the 1983 order after a delay of 23 years. The Writ Petitioners approached the court after the Revision filed by them was not accepted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the Appeal was excessive and could not be condoned. It also held that Sec. 2-A of the Act, 1956, which came into effect in 1975, cannot be applied retrospectively to the detriment of the Writ Petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay of more than 23 years could be condoned by exercising suo motu powers under the Act. 2. Whether the subject lands could be brought under the ambit of Sec. 2-A of the Act, 1956, which came into effect only from the year 1975 onwards (amendment vide Act 2 of 1975).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in filing the Appeal was excessive and could not be condoned. It also found that Sec. 2-A of the Act, 1956, cannot be applied retrospectively.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the Impugned Order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals was set aside.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri B. Sashibhushan Rao, learned Government Pleader attached to the Office of Additional Advocate General for Respondents.
2. The prayer made in the Writ Petition is as under: "...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in Proceedings No.V2/101/2013, dtd. 6/2/2014 of Commissioner of Appeals in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and set aside the same as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and also contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents not to interfere with the rights of the petitioners over the land in Survey No.173/1 admeasuring Ac.2.17 cents and 173/3P admeasuring Ac.6.07 cents situated at Konka Chennaiahgunta Village of Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor district and pass such further or other orders ....".
3. The facts as stated by the Writ Petitioners are as under:
i. The petition subject property originally formed part of Inam village granted by Poligar, Thimmappanayanivaru vide Title Deed No.2942 in the year 1677. After several transactions, one Sri Kondapalli Chenga Reddy has purchased an extent of Acs.178.33 cents covered under Title Deed No.2942 through Registered Document No.703 of 1941 dtd. 17/8/1941 from the then Inamdar, Valluru Venkatapathy Chetty. In this document, it is pertinent to state that the specific boundaries have been mentioned with reference to the schedule property of Registered Document No.703 of 1941 as West and South of Thimminaidpalem village lands and North of Poolavanigunta and Jammivanipatteda lands and East to the lands of Tirupati and Korlakunta Villages.
ii. Writ Petitioners" vendor one Sri T. Krishnaiah has purchased an extent of Ac.6.07 cents from the Inamdars Sri Kondepalli Chenga Reddy, K. Govinda Reddy and Gurvaiah Chetty with Paimash No.8 and with sub-divisions A, C and D of Konka Chennaiahgunta Inam Village through Registered Document No.1156 of 1964 dtd. 17/4/1964.
iii. Sri T. Krishnaiah Chetty made a Claim Petition before the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor for grant of Ryotwari Patta. The competent authority namely Inam Deputy Tahsildar, after conducting due enquiry, has passed Order vide Proceedings No.7 of 1983 dtd. 5/7/1983; and, Ryotwari Patta No.1 of 1983 dtd. 5/7/1983 was granted in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.6.07 cents in Sy.No.173/3 Part of Konka Chennaiahgunta Village (Ex.P.1). It is also stated that while passing Order dtd. 5/7/1983, the Inam Deputy Tahsildar held that the lands were under effective cultivation after inspecting the physical features of the land in question. Ryotwari Pattas were also issued by Inam Deputy Tahsildar and changes were duly incorporated in the Revenue Records i.e., Fair Adangal, and 10 (1) Adangal. While doing so, the Inam Deputy Tahsildar has also earmarked the subject land in sub-divisions and allotted the sub-division in favour of the vendor of the Writ Petitioners as Sy.No.173/4 admeasuring Ac.6.07 cents.
iv. The then Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Urban Mandal, has issued a letter No.Roc.A2/349/86 dtd. 22/5/1986 addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Tirupati stating that there is no objection to register the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.6.07 cents in Sy.No.173/4 and consequently several registrations have taken place. The Sub-Registrar, Tirupati also gave a certificate stating that market value of the land in question is Rs.2, 17, 80, 000.00 per acre. In the year 1987, Ryotwari Passbook was also issued in the name of Sri T. Krishnaiah, who is the vendor of the Writ Petitioners. Sri T. Krishnaiah was also paying the land revenue. In the year 2004, the Writ Petitioners purchased the petition subject property through R
Gajuwaka Gram Panchayat Rep. by the Executive Officer Vs. Medisetti Venkata Surynarayana
The court emphasized the violation of natural justice principles, specifically the right to be heard, in the context of administrative decisions under the Inams Abolition Act.
The court affirmed that a revision petition under the ROR Act can be filed without a time limit, emphasizing the need for a fresh enquiry into land ownership claims, especially in cases of alleged fr....
The court emphasized the importance of resolving disputed facts through denovo enquiry and directed the completion of the enquiry within a specified timeframe.
The revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the ROR Act cannot be exercised after a long delay, and the settled rights of a person under the ROR Act cannot be unsettled after a lapse of more than ....
When a gazette notification is issued declaring the classification of land, and a subsequent decision is made by a lower authority that is inconsistent with the notification, the matter requires reco....
The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by quasi-judicial authorities in the absence of any jurisdictional error or patent perversity.
Claims for land ownership after significant delays must be addressed by civil courts, as administrative bodies cannot adjudicate on disputed titles without violating established rights.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.