1 APHC010110492020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 6742/2020 Between: M.s. Phani Kumar, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P KAMLAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2 The Court made the following order: 1. The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his ancestral property admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.99 cents in Sy.No.67-1A and an extent of Ac.1.46 cents in Sy.No.55/3 of Chidipi Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that above lands belonged to his grandmother late Smt Manyam Meenakshamma. The said Meenakshmma during her life time executed a registered will dated 19.05.1972 bequeathing the subject property in favour of her adopted son Sri Raja Manyam Kanakayya Zamindar. After the demise of the said Manyam Meenakshamma, the adopted son came into possession of the lands above mentioned and enjoying the same as absolute owner and possessor. It is further case of the petitioner that the said Sri Raja Manyam Kanakayya Zamindar, in turn, executed a registered will dated 25.03.2011, bequeathing the said properties in favour of the petitioner. Sri Raja Manyam Kanakayya Zamindar 3 was expired on 17.10.2018 and upon his demise, the petitioner came into possession of the subject lands and enjoying the same as absolute owner. 4. It is further contended that the name of the original owner Smt Manyam Meenakshamma is reflecting in revenue records over the subject lands. It is further case of the petitioner that while things stood thus, the respondent authorities tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject lands so as to distribute the same to landless poor persons under Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki illu scheme. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondents interfered with the possession of the petitioner without following due process of law and without issuing notice, in those circumstances, the present writ petition came to be filed. 5. While ordering notice, this Court by order dated 17.03.2020 directed the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject lands. The said interim order is subsisting till today. 6. On the other hand, the 4th respondent-Tahsildar filed counter affidavit stating that the subject lands were identified for distribution of house sites to landless persons in as much as the 4 subject lands were classified as Government Dry in Fair Land Register of Chidipi Village. 7. On perusal of the counter affidavit, it is clear that the 4th respondent has admitted that the lands belong to Smt Manyam Meenakshamma. Nevertheless, it is stated that since the lands were kept vacant without cultivation and nobody claimed ownership over the said lands, the 4th respondent issued a notice dated 03.10.2019, purportedly exercising powers under Section 11(1) of Andhra Pradesh Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in pursuance of the notice dated 03.10.2019, he did not receive any claim over the subject property till 20.01.2020. It is further contended in the counter affidavit that Panchayat Secretary, Chidipi Gram Panchayat conducted Gram Sabha in the village and passed a resolution stating that Smt Manyam Meenakshamma, the original owner of the property in dispute had no legal heirs and she died intestate. In view thereof, proposals were submitted to Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur on 20.01.2020 for taking steps including issuance of declaration and escheats under the said Act. It is further contended that as the petitioner did not file any objection to the notice and the will deed 5 executed in his favour is also not seen light of the day, the petitioner cannot claim right over the subject lands as it is recorded as Government dry in the revenue records and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. It is not in dispute that Smt Manyam Meenakshamma was the original owner of the subject lands and the same was admitted by the respondent No.4 in his counter affidavit. On perusal of the registered will deed dated 19.05.1972, it is clear that the original owner Smt Manyam Meenakshamma bequeathed the said lands in favour of her adopted son Sri Raja Manyam Kanakayya Zamindar. The 4th respondent did not deny the factum of execution of registered will deed in favour of her adopted son. Further, the said Sri Raja Manyam Kanakayya Zamindar executed a registered will deed dated 25.03.2011 in favour of the petitioner, bequeathing subject lands in his favour and after his demise on 17.10.2018, the petitioner has been enjoying the subject land as original owner. 9. It is needless to mention that the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent is conspicuously silent with regard to the registered wills executed by the original owner and the father of the petitioner. Taking into consideration all the above aspects, 6 this Court granted interim order on 17.03.2020 directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. 10. The counsel for the petitioner also contends that the 4th respondent has no jurisdiction to issue notice dated 03.10.2019 exercising powers under Section 11 (1) of the said Act, in as much as there is no notification as such is issued under Section 5 of the said Act appointing local officer to exercise the powers and perform the functions under the Act. The counsel for the petitioner further contends that on a reading of Section 2(i), which defines the “bona vacantia” includes any property, situated in the State of which there is no rightful owner, but does not include and escheat on any movable property found in a public place. He further contends that he is claiming right over the property by virtue of a registered will and therefore by no stretch of imagination, the said property be treated as bona vacantia. He also contends that the 4th respondent has no jurisdiction to send the proposals to declare the subject land as bona vacantia. 11. As already noted supra, it is clear that Smt Manyam Meenakshamma is the absolute owner of the subject lands from whom the petitioner is claiming title by virtue of registered will deed dated 25.03.2011. The 4th respondent without conducting 7 any enquiry came to the conclusion that the subject lands were kept vacant and nobody claiming title, relying on the resolution passed by the Gram panchayat. 12. On a perusal of the counter affidavit, it is clear that neither the alleged resolution is filed along with the counter affidavit nor the date of resolution said to have been made by the Gram Panchayat is mentioned. Further, even assuming that such resolution is made by the Gram Panchayat, the same cannot be relied on, in as much as Gram Panchayat has absolutely no role to play in the matter, nor have competence to pass such resolution. 13. Further, if a property is to be declared as ‘bona vacantia’, the same has to be done after adhering to the provisions of the said Act. But in the case on hand, the respondents relying on the alleged resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, sent proposals to the concerned to declare the property as such. In any event, the petitioner did not challenge the action of the respondents under the said Act. Therefore, it is always open to the petitioner to question the said action as and when initiated, if he is so advised. 8 14. From the above, it is clear that the manner and method in which the 4th respondent proceeding in the matter is unknown to law and as already stated, in the absence of any notification issued by the State under Section 5 of the Act, notice dated 03.10.2019 issued by the 4th respondent raises a doubt. Since the notice dated 03.10.2019 is not under challenge, this Court is not going into the validity of the same. 15. In view of the foregoing reason, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject lands except in accordance with law. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.19.03.2025 JLV 9 211 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR W.P.No.6742 of 2020 Date: 19.03.2025 JLV