APHC010266722021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 15554/2021 Between: Pesala Malla Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. J UGRANARASIMHA (SC FOR APIIC) The Court made the following: ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the land to an extent of Ac.1.77 cents in Sy.No.40/1A of Rampathadu Villlage fields, Pendimarri Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, under registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1985 of 2008, dated 17.06.2008, and the subject land is private land and the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the same without any interference from anyone muchless from the respondents. While so, with a 2 view to convert the subject property from agriculture to non-agriculture in order to construct a Go-down, the petitioner made an application under Section 3(2) of Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2006) to respondent No.3 by paying necessary charges through challan dated 14.11.2013. Thereafter, respondent No.4, after conducting necessary inspections, submitted a report dated 16.11.2013 to respondent No.3 recommending for conversion of the subject land from agricultural to non agricultural purpose but respondent No.3 failed to issue Conversion Certificate as per Section 3(6) of the Act, 2006. It is further case that, respondent Nos.2 to 6 without initiating any proceedings for acquisition under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2013) for the alleged purpose or by paying compensation to the petitioner with his consent, started to interfere with the rights of the petitioner over the subject land stating that the subject land is taken possession for establishment of an Industrial Estate. When the petitioner questioned, the respondents informed him that the subject land belongs to the Government, hence, no compensation need to be paid. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gurram Rama Chandra Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APIIC and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit submitted that, the petitioner purchased the subject property by way of a registered sale deed dated 17.06.2008 and in order to construct a Go-down, made an application for conversion of the subject land from agriculture to non-agriculture and on the said application, the Tahsildar, Pendlimarri Mandal, submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa Revenue Division, recommending for conversion. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer did not pass any orders on the petitioners application. Thereafter, when the respondent authorities tried to interfere with the rights of petitioner over the subject property, he came to know that the subject land is required for establishment of industrial estate and they are treating that the subject land as Government land. He further contended that when the Tahsildar has submitted a report recommending for conversion, it clearly shows that the subject land is a private land and the petitioner is in possession of the same and if at all the respondent authorities want any private property for public purpose, they have to acquire the same by following law or atleast to take consent from the land owner. In the present case, without following any such procedure, the respondents highhandedly interfering with the petitioner’s property and if such action is materialized, the rights of the petitioner would be affected, as such, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader in elaboration to what has been stated in the counter of respondent No.3 4 contended that the land in Sy.No.40 admeasuring Ac.10.74 cents of Rampathadu Village is classified as patta Dry as per R.S.R, and recorded in the name of Madireddi Pedda Venkatasubbaiah and Chinna Venkatasubbaiah. Further, an extent of Ac.1.97 cents in Sy.No.40-A formed from Sy.No.40 was granted on DKT patta vide DKT No.436/84 in the name of C.R.Sunkamma, and the subject land stands in the name of the assignee Smt.C.R.Sunkamma and is included in 22-A list. Land in Sy.No.40/A1 is recorded as DKT land in the name of C.R.Sukamma. As could be verified from the webland adangal, an extent of Ac.1.77 cents in Sy.No.40-1A is shown as ‘PENDING’ both in Pattadar & Enjoyer column. He further contended that as per the registered sale document No.1985/2008, dated 17.06.2008, the petitioner has purchased an extent of Ac.1.77 cents in Sy.No.40/1A of Rampathadu Village, from Busaboina Venkatasubbaiah s/o Santenna & Busaboina Srinivasulu s/o Venkatasubbaiah. Thereafter, the petitioner seems to have made an application dated 24.10.2013 before the RDO for conversion of the said land into non agricultural land for construction of Go-down and the proceedings of the 4th respondent recommending for conversion of the subject land filed in the writ petition were not traced out from the official records and the said document is without signature of the Tahsildar concerned, as such, the same cannot be taken into consideration. He further contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer who is the competent authority for conversion of the land from agriculture to non 5 agriculture did not issue any orders for the reason that the subject land is DKT land, as such, the petitioner cannot claim the Government land as his land and seek any relief from this Court, as such, prayed to dismiss the writ petition being meritless. 5. Sri Gurram Rama Chandra Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.5 & 6 on counter submitted that the land in question is DKT land and it is not a private land. The sale deed cannot confer title as the said sale deed is prohibited one as per Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 and the petitioner cannot claim the compensation under a void document. He further submitted that the petitioner was not in possession of the land at any point of time much less on the date of filing of the writ petition and admittedly the possession was with the APIIC authorities since 04.11.2008. In fact, the land was resumed to Government for violation of the original grant conditions, the question of paying compensation amount invoking the Land Acquisition proceedings does not arise and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. There is no violation of Constitutional rights, the writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merits and liable to dismissed. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even according to their counter the land in Sy.No.40 to an extent of Ac.10.74 cents is classified as patta land as per RSR and recorded in the name of Madireddy Pedda Venkata Subbaiah and Chinna Venkata Subbaiah who are vendors of the petitioner and moreover all the revenue records stand in the name of his predecessors in title. Further, none has claimed that the subject land belong to them and since the land is a private patta land, the Government cannot claim any title over it. He further contended that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property, as such, the APIIC cannot claim possession by virtue of the proceedings dated 21.07.2014. There is no piece of material placed on record to show that the subject land is an assigned land and the assignees were ever in possession of the same and further, no proceedings are placed as to when possession has been taken from the assignees. In the absence of the same, the respondent cannot say that the petitioners are not in possession of the property, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides. 8. The petitioner is claiming the subject property under registered sale deed dated 17.06.2008 and pursuantly he made an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer for conversion of his land from agriculture to non- agriculture in order to construct Go-down for which the Tahsildar sent a recommendation to the Revenue Divisional Officer for consideration of the 7 petitioners application. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are trying to interfere with his possession and dispossess him from the subject property for establishment of industrial park without following law or by paying any compensation. 9. The respondents case is that the land admeasuring Ac.10.74 cents in Sy.No.40 of Rampathadu Village is classified as patta Dry as per R.S.R and the petitioner is claiming land admeasuring Ac.1.77 cents in Sy.No.40/1A which is an assigned land and the APIIC is claimed to be in possession of the same by virtue of proceedings dated 31.07.2014. 10. A perusal of the proceedings vide Ref.A/208/2008 dated 31.07.2014 would indicate that in partial modification of the possession certificate already issued on 04.11.2008, revised possession certificate is issued in respect of the Government lands in favour of A.P.I.I.C Ltd., for establishment of industrial park in Rampathadu Village, Pendlimarri Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. It would further indicate that the land to an extent of Ac.1.77 cents in Sy.No.40A has been classified as AW land. 11. The petitioner is claiming that the land in Sy.No.40/1A. This would indicate that there is sub-division of the Sy.No.40. In the counter, it was categorically stated sub-division took place insofar as survey No.40 is concerned as Sy.No.40A and 40/1A. While coming to the proceedings dated 31.07.2014 i.e., revised possession certificate, the land to an extent of Ac.1.77 cents in Sy.No.40A has been converted as AW waste but when 8 coming to counter, the said extent of Ac.1.77 cents has been shown in Sy.No.40/1A. 12. The petitioner is mostly relying on the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 16.11.2013 through which the Tahsildar is stated to have recommended to convert the subject land from agriculture to non-agriculture. In the counter it is contended that the said proceedings does not contain signature of the Tahsildar. A perusal of the said document would indicate that there is no signature or stamp of the Tahsildar on it, as such, there is some force in the contention of the respondents that the said recommendation of the Tahsildar cannot be taken into consideration while adjudicating the writ petition. The petitioner is relying on the sale deed dated 17.06.2008 to show that he is in possession of the property. No other material is placed on record to show his possession nor his name found place in revenue records. There are disputed questions of fact involved in the present writ petition wherein this Court cannot adjudicate the same under Article 226 of Constitution basing on the material available. If at all the petitioner wants to claim title over the subject property, he has to approach competent forum. As such, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 9 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 12th February, 2025 RKS