Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 1310
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ., R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
Kanderi Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkata Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Nulu Subrahmaneswara Rao, S/o. Sambasiva Rao and Others. – Respondents
Writ Appeal No.391 Of 2023
Decided On : 04-04-2024
For the Appellant : Smt. N. Anula.
For the Respondents: Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, GP for Revenue.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that a Tahsildar cannot exercise jurisdiction under the Act if a competent court has already decided on the merits, emphasizing the importance of natural justice.
Headnote:
(A) Andhra Pradesh Occupants of Homesteads (Conferment of Ownership) Act, 1976 - The writ appeal challenges the order quashing the Tahsildar's decision to confer ownership, citing jurisdictional overreach and violation of natural justice principles. (Paras 6, 19, 24)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court held that once a competent court has decided on merits, the Tahsildar cannot exercise jurisdiction under the Act. (Paras 6, 20)
(C) Natural Justice - The Tahsildar's failure to provide adequate opportunity to the parties constituted a violation of natural justice. (Paras 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
The appellant claims ownership of a homestead after a civil court decree ordered eviction from larger land. The Tahsildar's order was challenged for lack of jurisdiction and natural justice.
Findings of Court:
The court agreed with the single judge's finding of jurisdictional overreach and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Issues: The main issues were the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar post-civil court decree and adherence to natural justice principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that jurisdiction under the Act cannot be exercised if a competent court has already decided on the merits, emphasizing the need for adherence to natural justice.
Result: Writ appeal allowed, matter remanded for fresh consideration.
JUDGMENT :
(Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ.)
The present writ appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.25831 of 2010. By virtue of judgment and order impugned, the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein was allowed and the order passed by the tahsildar dated 29.06.2010 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Occupants of Homesteads (Conferment Of Ownership) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) passed in favour of the appellant herein was set aside.
With a view to understand the background, in the light of which the present controversy has arisen, it is necessary to give the material facts, in brief:
2. Mr. Nulu Subrahmaneswara Rao/Respondent No.1 herein, is the owner of land measuring Five Acres and Thirty Three Cents falling in Survey No.625/1 and Thirteen Cents falling in Survey No.625/2 situate in Bheemanapalli Village of East Godavari District. These parcels of land were given on oral lease in the year 1998, to the father of the appellant and after whose death the appellant herein stepped into his shoes. It appears that on account of certain alleged defaults in the rentals for the years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, the writ petitioner, Mr. N. Subramanyeswara Rao/respondent No.1 herein, filed an application bearing Andhra Tenancy Case No.06 of 2006 which was allowed by the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram with a direction to the appellant herein to vacate the schedule property with a further direction regarding delivery of possession of the same within three months from the date of the said order.
3. An appeal preferred by the appellant herein against the said judgment and decree also came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 24.09.2008. In the interregnum, the appellant herein approached the Tahsildar, Uppalaguptam under the provisions of the Act.
4. The Tahsildar in his order recorded that the extent of Homestead land claimed by the applicant was measuring Three Cents out of Five Acres Forty Six Cents which was covered by the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. The Tahsildar in his Order proceeded to hold as under:
“The applicant is an Agricultural labour and is a Land less Agriculturist. The Homestead land measuring Ac.0.03 cts is under his occupation by construction of a thatched house at own cost and dwelling in it for the past 40 years.
I therefore consider the applicant Sri Kanderi Satyanarayana S/o Venkatareddy of Kithanacheruvu H/o Bheemanapalli (V) of Uppalaguptam (M) as Occupant of the Homestead land measuring Ac.0.03 cts in R.S.No.625/2 Kithanacheruvu H/o Bheemanapalli (V) of Uppalaguptam (M) under the AP Occupants of Homesteads (Conferment of) Ownership rules 1975 and Order issue of Ownership Certificate on payment of price mentioned in Form II of the Act.”
5. The order passed by the Tahsildar came to be challenged by way of writ petition No.25831 of 2010, which was allowed by virtue of judgment and order dated 24.03.2023, impugned in the present writ appeal, on the ground that the Tahsildar, Uppalaguptam in passing the order dated 29.06.2010, acted without jurisdiction inasmuch as the principles of natural justice had been violated as also the pleas raised by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein had not been considered on merits by the Tahsildar.
6. The learned single Judge appears to have been not satisfied that the enquiry as envisaged under Rule 4 of the rules framed under the Act had been conducted properly.
Apart from this, the learned single Judge was of the view that once the Court of competent jurisdiction had decided disputed questions and rendered a decision on merits in the matter, the Tahsildar could not have exercised jurisdiction which was conferred upon him by the Homestead Act. It was therefore held:
“19) ... Once a Court of competent jurisdiction, which has the authority to decide the disputed questions, has given a decision on the merits of
