CHINTAPALLI SREENIVASA PRASAD v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1. CHINTAPALLI SREENIVASA PRASAD, S/O LATE SRI APPA RAO CHINTAPALLI SREENIVASA PRASAD, S/O LATE SRI APPA RAO CHINTAPALLI SREENIVASA PRASAD, S/O LATE SRI APPA RAO 29, SECTAR -3, MVP AGE 66 YRS NO -24;MIG -I D.NO. 1-74-29, SECTAR AGE 66 YRS NO COLONY VISAKHAPATNAM-530017 COLONY VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARIAT SECRETARIAT PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT PRINCIPAL HYDERABAD. FOR REVENUE FOR REVENUE FOR REVENUE SECRETARY SECRETARY SECRETARY THE DISTRICT COLLECTAR, VISHKAPATNAM DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTAR, VISHKAPATNAM DISTRICT THE DISTRICT COLLECTAR, VISHKAPATNAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be issue appropriate Writ, direction, or order more particularly one in issue appropriate Writ, direction, or order more particularly one in pleased to issue appropriate Writ, direction, or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or order/direction to the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or order/direction to the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or order/direction to plemented the order of the Hon’ble Lokayukta Respondent No 2,to to have i nt No 2,to to have implemented the order of the Hon’ 3577 / 2012 /B l on the File of the 2015 passed in Complaint ratan-3577 / 2012 /B l on the File of the dt 29-04-2015 passed in Complaint ratan ngana and dispose as Institution of Lokayukta for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and dispose as Institution of Lokayukta for Andhra Pradesh and Tel per law and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2016 (WPMP 23145 OF 2016 (WPMP 23145 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to 2 CMR,J W.P.No.18857 of 2016 fix an early date for final hearing and Pass such further and other orders ad may be found expedient under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. VARREY VENKATA NAGA VISHNU TEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)

2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3 CMR,J W.P.No.18857 of 2016 The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed seeking direction to respondent No.2-the District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, to implement the order dated 29.04.2015 of the Lokayukta passed in complaint No.3577/2012/B1.

2. Heard Mr. Varrey Venkata Naga Vishnu Teja, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

3. Briefly stated, it is the case of the writ petitioner that his mother by name Chintapalli Satya Gunavathi Devi is a political sufferer and she is a freedom fighter and she is the follower of Mahatma Gandhi and she has participated in various freedom and swadeshi movements. Therefore, considering her services rendered to the nation that the D-form patta was issued to her, assigning Ac.4.98 cents of land covered by survey Nos.60/2, 61/1 and 61/3 of survey No.48 at Pothina Mallayya Palem in Visakhapatnam District in the year 1961 and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land and her name is incorporated in the revenue records and she is shown as the pattadar in the adangal and other revenue records till the year 1993. It is also stated that she has been paying the cist payable for the said land.

4. While so, it is stated that without cancelling the said patta issued in favour of the mother of the petitioner by the competent authority that an effort is made by the revenue authorities to take possession of the said land from the petitioner, who is enjoying the said land by inheritance after death of his mother, who is the original assignee and to deliver possession of the same to another person. Therefore, the petitioner has approached the then Lokayukta of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh. The Lokayukta by its order dated

29.04.2015 held that the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam submitted a report stating that there is no record to show that assignment has been made. But, 4 CMR,J W.P.No.18857 of 2016 held that it is evident from the material papers produced by the complainant that his mother has been assigned with the land and the original produced by him has been perused. Therefore, the Lokayukta directed the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal to initiate proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977) (for short, A.P. Act 9 of 1977) by issuing the notice to both the parties and to conduct an enquiry and then pass orders in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Act 9 of 1977 within a period of six months from date of receipt of copy of the order and dispose of the said complaint accordingly.

5. Now the grievance of the writ petitioner is that no proceedings are initiated by the Tahsildar, as directed by the Lokayukta, within the time stipulated in the order. Therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed to implement the order of the Lokayukta.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, would submit that there is no record showing that the land was assigned to the mother of the writ petitioner and as such, it cannot be said that the land was assigned to the mother of the writ petitioner under the D-Patta.

7. It is already noticed supra, while narrating the facts of the case that the Lokayukta has clearly held in its orders that even though it is stated in the report of the Joint Collector that there is no record to show that the assignment has been made, as per the material papers produced by the complainant, who is the writ petitioner herein that it is evident that his mother has been assigned with the land and the original produced by him was perused. Further, according to the writ petitioner, the name of his mother was shown as pattadar in all the revenue records and in the adangal from the year 1961 when the patta was given and the land was assigned, till the year 1993 continuously. The said fact cannot be now ignored. When her name was shown in the adangal as pattadar of the said land, it lends support to the contention of the petitioner and proves that the land was assigned to his mother under a Patta. 5 CMR,J W.P.No.18857 of 2016 Although the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that there is a doubt regarding genuineness of the patta produced by the petitioner before the Lokayukta, the Tahsildar ought to have verified the genuineness of the same while initiating proceedings in terms of the direction given by the Lokayukta. But, without initiating any proceedings under the A.P. Act 9 of 1977 and without implementing the order of Lokayukta, the said direction has been completely ignored.

8. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed. The 2nd respondent-District Collector, Visakhapatnam shall direct the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal to initiate proceedings, as ordered by the Lokyukta in its order dated 29.04.2015. Both the District Collector, Visakhapatnam and the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal shall forthwith implement the order dated 29.04.2015 of the Lokayukta in its true spirit within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order. If necessary, survey of land is to be conducted. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Date: 17.03.2026 MDP ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY