The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard learned counsel for tl-re petitioner, learned Gorrernment Pleader for MA&UD appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.3, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, learrred Govcrnment Pleader for Home appcaring lor respondent No.5, :,rnd pcrused thc rccord.

2. The petitioner. by the Dresent Writ Petitior-r has assailed the action of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 in interfering rvith her peaceful possession and e r-rjoyment over house property bearing Door No.6-51 situated at Nercducherla Village & Mandal, Suryapet District, AS being high11, iilegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice and il-r violation of Articles I 4, 15, 2 1 & 3O0A of the Constitution of Irrd ia.

3. The case of the petitioner as se I or-rt in the :it]iclavit filed in support ol the u,rit petition is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has allotted land to an exterlt of Ac.O.03 cents bearing 2 plot No.7OA in survey No.272 of Nereducherla Villagc & Mandal, in the nam,r of Enjamuri Janakamma uide: proccedings No.8 1667O12003, dt.03.04.2003', that the saicl allottce had constructed a snrall house with ACC sheet, u'hich ri'as mutated in her name in Grampanchayath records and allotted issucd Door No.6/51 ; and that she resided therein ul) to the vear 2009

4. It is the further case of the petitioner th{rt the aforesaid land along u,rth a small temporary house constructcd u'ith ACC sheets has bcen sold by the allottee to the petitioner on

09.O 1.2009 lx exccuting an agreement ol sale br re ceiving the total considcralion reserved thereunder and rhereafter, the petitioner has been living in the said house u'ith her childrerr

5. It is ttre case of the petitioner that the 4,h respondent b1' sending its stafl had demanded and threatene<l her to vacale the house and to hand over the same to them; that on the petitioner rcfusing to vacate the said premises, t he respondents have developed grudge against her; and that t [-re respondents are trying to demolish the house ald dispossess the petitioner r,r,ithout issLring any notice and without follo*,inil due process ol 3

lau', which action it is contended as highlf illegal and arbitrary, ',r,ith a consequential direction to the respondents not to intcrfere u,ith the peaceful possession and not to demolish the l-rou se.

6. Counter affidavit on behalf ol respondent No.4 is filed. Bl the counter affidavit, it is contended that the claim of the petiLioner of the land to an extent oi Ac.0.O3 cents in survey No.272 ivith allotted plot No.70/A being allotted to one Smt.tr.Jankamma, is based on the pr-rrported proceedings, dt.03.04.2003, which is a fabricated document; that Enjamuri .janakamma, who is claimed to be the original allottee is none other than the sister-in-law ol the petitioner herein, had encroached the road in survey No.272 and erected a tin shed therein; that during the year 2OO9, the said Enjamuri Janakamma brought into existence an unregistered sale deed shou.ing the sale of disputed site to the petitioner; that prior to the respondents initiating action, no one used to reside therein; that on account of the Grampanchavat being upgraded into Municipality, necessity has arisen to form the road for the use 4 of the residents; and that there r,r,ere complaints from the residcnts of t:re area to clear the etrcroachment o]"r t he road

7. 81, the (.roltnter affidavit, it is further contended that since, the petitioner u:rs claimed of having obtained patta in respcct ol plot No.7OA uide proceedings, dt.03.04.2OO3, one N.Kiran, neighbor ol the subject land, made an application under RTI Act, 2005, t,r Tal.rsildar for asserting the titlc ol the said sitc; that in resl)()nsc to the aloresaid application, the Tahsilrlar uide his letter, dt.31.12.2022, stated that the sai<l proccedings, uncler which tl'rc petitioner had claimed of havinq becn gr:urted patta in lavrrur of Enjamuri Janakamma, in fact relates to the proceedings issued rvith regard to the caste certificate irr favour ol Vaditya Rarncsh Naik, S/o Hussain Nayak R/o Padr.athanda. and does lrot relate to grant of house site patta to Enjamuri Jalakammzr. B. By tht: counter afhdavit it is further contcnded that since, Enjamuri J anakarnma is not the owner ol the' land and had claimed thr: sr.tbjcct land by rvay of a fabricated document, she cannot transfer title to the petitioner herein. 5 9 . The 4,r, respondent by the counter affidavit further contended that since, no patta has been issued to Enjamuri Janakamma, the petitioner cannot claim herself to be the owner ol the said land having purchased under an agreement of sale, and as such, the father of the petitioner, who is available iocally on being asked to remove the illegal construction and vacate the subject land, had given an undertaking on 08.02.2023. that he u ill \racate the subject premises and requested for some time. Hou/ever, the respondents on learning that the petitioner's fatl-rer instead of vacating the subject land by removing the illegal structure is planning to approach the Court, though had sought time for vacating the same, the staff o[ the 4th respondent approached the petitioner on 09.02.2023 and asked them to remove the structure and did not attempt to demolish the shed as alleged.

10. By the counter affidavit, it is lurther contended that the petitioner, her father, brother and mother, everybody present at the subject premises threatened the municipal staff not to take any action and also threatened with self-immolation if any steps are taken to get the said site vacated and in fact pored 6 \ I petrol on their bodies and threatened the staff of the ar-rswering respondent u,ith dire consequences; that in vieu,of the said acts and tense sitr Lation, thc respondent stafl called the police to the site ar-rd w,ith,-Lrirs rr 1-ris staff there lrom and lodgeci a report r,r'ith the 5tl, respondent, who upon receiving the said complaint/ reporL, registered a case uide Crtmc No.27 12023, dt.L0.O2.2O2i], aqainst the petitioner, her brotl.rcr and parents

11. By th<: col.lnter affidavit, the 4th respondent further contended that thc petitioner had approached thr: Mandal Legal Serviccs Comrnittee(MLSC), Huzurnagar ot-I oB.o2.'2023. complaining tl-r:rl municipal authorities in collusion r.vith the neighbors ol thc land, are harassing the petitioner about the alleged encrr>achment and requested to take necessary action; and that thc Legal Aid Committee had issued notice to the authorities irnd enquired into the matter.

12. Bv tht- counter affidavit, it is lurther stared that in thc enquiry conducted by the MLSC, the Tahsildar, Nereducherla, who is the :+tt: rcspondent therein, has clearly srated that there was no patta issued uide proceedings dt.03.01.2OO3 lor plot No.70/A, canceliing the road, the legal services authority had 7 passed a docket order dt.23.02.2o23 uide PLC.No.4 of 2023 advising the petitioner to approach the competent Court to seek redressal of her grievance as per law.

13. Bv stating as above, the 4th respondent had claimed that the strid respondent's authorities have follorvcd rlue process of the lau, in taking steps to remove the illegal encroachment, but it is the petitioner and her family members, who have threatened the government officia,ls and obstructed the authorities lrom discharging their official duties under the threat of self-immolation and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the n,rit petition. 1,4. Counter affidar.it on behalf of the 3.d respondent is liled. 81, the counter affidavit, the 3.d respondent had contended that Iand in survey No.272 of Nereducherla Village, Suryapet District, belongs to government; that the said land u,as distributed as house plots to landless poor; that the revenue department has issued house site patta certificates to all the ber-reliciaries; that the Tahsil Office maintains a distribution register ald each and every document received by the office and dispatched from the office is recorded in the said register by B \ assigning a soridl number; that the serial number assigned to a particular dor;ument will becorrre the file numberi and tl-rat the relerence nurnber assigned to each house site pirtta certificate aligns with the distribution rcgister scrial number i5. By the counter affidavit, the 3.d respondent contended that in the instant case, the petitioner has prodr.rced house site patta certificatc bearing No.B/6670/03, dt.03.021.2003; that in the saicl nttrnber, the alphabet "B" refcrs to tirc conccrned Section, '*r,hi,:h dcals u,ith hor-rse site pattas, nurnbcr "6670" is generated from the distribution register, aud nurLi:er "03" is the year; and tLrat the S1.No.6670 ol the distributiorr register r,r,as assigned to a communication relating Lo issLlance of caste certificate to or-re Vaditya Ramesh Naik, S/o Hr:ssain Nayak R/o Padyathanda, and thus, tl-re patta certificate pr,rduced by the petitioner t,ith the aforesaicl number is not gcnr-rine and borne out of the rergister maintained b,v the Tahsildar-Oflice

16. By the counter-af[idavit it is further contc.nded that the house site 1;atta certificate liled by the petitioner along u,ith the writ petitic,n while mentions the number as "70/A" vt,ith boundaries mcntioned as "North:Plot No.70, South:Plot No.79, v 9 East:Road, West:Road", a perusal of the layout of survey No.272 liled by the petitioner does not shor,r, existence of any plot No.70/A in the said la_yout or there is any sub-division of plots irr tl're said la_r,out; and on the contrary, the plot No.70 as shou,n in the iayout is mentioncd with boundaries as "North:Plot No.65, South:Plot No.79, East:Road, West:Plot No.69".

77. By the counter it is lurther contended that B. Narayana Reddl', a retired Tahsildar, u,ho q.orked as Tahsildar at the relevant point of time has given letter dt. 18.05.2023, stating that he has not issued house site patta certilicate to the petitioner's vendor, trnjamuri Janakamma, and the signature on the certificate does not belong to him and it is a forged signature and the boundaries were also created, and is a fabricated document.

18. By the counter affidavit it is further stated that even if the claim of the petitioner of existence of plot No.70/A is to be accepted as correct, the said patta should be abutting to the already existing plot No.70, whereby the boundaries would be different; that there is no house site bearing No.7O/A issued by the revenue department; that the house site patta certificate _/ 10 brought into trxistence bir the petitioner is a fakc. labricated and forged docunrent.

19. By the r:oLrnter affidavit it is further contenrled that since, the petitionerr's vendor \ ras not allottcd hor,rse site, the petitioner cannot claim or.l,nersl-rip or possessiorr based on an invalid docurnent; arrd that the petitioner on thr: basis of the fake and fabriczrted document has encroachcd on to thc road in between plot Nos.70 & 71, and erected a metal sheet roorn causing lot of inconvenience and ha-rdship to tlre residellts of the locality and thus, thc said constructio n made bv the petitioner is a clear encroachment.

20. By the counter affidavit it is lurther cor-rtr.nded that the ciaim of the petitioner of she having approached the said respondent and requesting him to direct the .1,. r'espondent not to interfere with her peacelul possession and not to demolish her house, is an incorrect statemcnt as the pet itioner did not approach the 3.d respondent nor give any repr€rsentation, and the said allegation has been made onl-v for thc: sake of present writ petition . 11 21 . The petitioner thereafter filed additional documents by r,r'av of I.A.No.2 of 2023.

22. I have taken note of the respective submissions made

23. Though it is the primary contcntion of the petitioner that onc Enjamuri Janakamma W lo Eedaiah, having been granted house site patta uide proceedings No.B I 6670 l2OO3, dt.03.04.2003, in respect of land to an extent of Ac.O.03 cents in survey No.272 and the said plot having becn sold to the petitioner under an agreement of sale, dt. i9.Ol.2OO9, a perusal of the copy of the patta certificate, on the basis ol r,thich, the petitioner is laying claim to the subject plot as having been sold to her, would frsll-q, indicate that the said patta granted cannot be sold or gifted for a period of tcn (10) years rvithout prior permission from the Revenue Divisional officer, for petitioner to make a claim of having purchased the same lrom the original allottee namely Enjamuri Janakamma, and secondlg, at the bottom of the said patta certificate it has been stated that the said patta is being given by cancelling the road, but, it is to be noted that there cannot be a patta for the purpose of formation of road as the roads, be it in the Grampanchayat or 17 Municipality, u,ould be the property of the concerned Grampanchat'at/ Municipality and does not rcqtrire any patta to bc grantccl ar the first instance lor it to ltc cancelled and given in favolrr ol-the petitioner's vendor.

24. Further, thc 3.d respondent by the counter affidavit filed into the Court claimed that the proceedings No.13/667O12OO3, dt.03.O4.2OO.l, as reflected in the patta certificatc, on thc basis of u,hich, tl-rc' Petitioner is claiming the subject land as havitrg been allottcrl to Enjamuri Janakamma and the same being sold to her ur-rdc:r an agreement of sale to her in the 5,ear 2009, rclates t.o a communication issued in resllect of Caste Certilicate i:r f:n,our ol one Vaditya Ramesh Nail<, S/o Hussain Nayak R/o l)ad-r'athanda and not relates to grant of housc patta in favour oi' Enjamr-tri Janakamma, the saicl issue becomes a disputed question of fact.

25. Furth,. r, thr: respondents along with the counter aflidavit 1n supporl ol their contention enclosed the extract of Dispatch/ D istribution Register(DR) in relation to entry No.6670 to claim th.rt the said register does not show the name of the original allottee, Enjamuri Janakamma. On the other hand, the t rF!-r|.E' 13 petitioner contended that the said extract relates to day register and the extract of the Dispatch Register obtained b1, him under RTI Act having entries from S1.No.1670 to 1725, clearll. shows the name ol the original allottee i.e., petitioner's vendor at S.No.1702, and thus, the claim of the respondents-authorities of the patta certificate beirrg relied upon bv the petitioncr to be forgcd and fabricated is a false statemer rt rnade to denv the claim of the petitioner over the subject land and is oniy intended to dispossess her therelrom. In tiew' of tl-re divergent stands taken by the parties, this Court perused the record.

26. From a perusal of the copy ol the Distribution Register(DR) obtarned by the petitioner under RTI Act as filed into this Court along with IA.No.2 of 2023, there are seven columns in all. That the lrrst column is Sr.No. u.herein Entry l7O2 is mentioned. In the next column n,hich deals rvith the nature of application received, the original entry records as ' " ' means 'ditto'as noted above, which in S.No.1699 is recorded as 'Arji' mear-ring representation, has been over u,ritten and changed to "patta marpu" (means change of patta); that in the next column of the register the entry made as "ku.dru.pa"(kula l4 I druveekarana patram, n,hich means caste certificate) has been altered to 'assigned patta" and the next column relating to the detaiis of th,, person making application, the srLme has becn struck-off and the namc of Enjamuri Janakam ma has been entcred Lher',-'irr and the in the next column of the said record concernecl section being "F"' hzrs been overwritten as "8"

27. Furthcr, though the petitioner claims c,f she having obtaincd the aforesaid information in response to an applicatior-r rnade urnder RTC Act, the petitioner clid not cl-roosc to lile thc onilinal of the information obtainerl by her and ir-rstead hacl onlr, filecl Xcrox copies with over-rvritings, as noted

28. In ad<litior-r, it is also to be noted that ttre petitioner is claiming tht: subject plot AS having been pur<:hased by lier under an agrecment of sale executed by the original allottee , trnjamuri Janakamma. It is to be noted that the said agreement of salc is e>:ecuted on a Rs. 10/ non-judicial paper and is titled as "inti sthirla vikraya dastaveju", rvhich means .house site sale deed" thcrerbl, requiring registration in terms ol Section 17 ol the Registratiorr Act, 1908, and also being liable to be subjected I I 15 to appropriate stamp duty under the Stamp Act, not$,ithstanding the fact that the said sale is contrary to the conditions ol the patta, even if the same is considered for a moment to be a genuine document, on the basis ol u'hich claim is being made to the subject iand. 29 . F urther, it is also to be noted that though the petitioner claims of her vendor having constructed a small house u ith ACC sheet and resided therein till 2009, which has been mutated on to her name in Grampanchayath records by issuing Door No.6 51 and she having paid property ta-x in relation thereto, rvhich has been purchased by the petitioner herein on

19.0i.2009, the copy of the receipt filed along with the nrit petition to claim of the subject room constructed b,v her u'itl-r ACC sheet being assessed to property tax, shows the date of the receipt as 30.03.20 12 and is issued in the name of Enjamuri Janakamma i.e., the petitioner's vendor, and it relates to thc year 2O 1 l-12, by which time, according to the petitioner herself, the said Enjamuri Janakamma sold the said property to the petitioner on 19.01.2009. 16

30. Further a perusal of the aloresaid receipt would also shou' that ttre said receipt has been issued i:r relation to permrssion fc,: for construction of a house under "Indiramma lndlu Schem'j'':rnd does not relate to assessrnent of propertl, tax in respect ol door No.6 51 as claimed by the- petitioner in the present u'ri1. petition. 3I . It is also pe rtinent to note that a perusal of the layout plan of survr:'\, l\o.272 filed by the petitioner n,or,rld also show that there is no plot with No.70/A in the said layout for the petitioner to clzrirn that the said plot having been assigned in favour of Er-ijaunuri Janakamma by cancelling a road patta, firstlg, and sl-rc having sold the same in favour of the petitioner, sub seque n tl r-.

32. it is also scttled position of law that no right, title or interest can bc clairned on the basis of an agreement of sale or unregistered doctrment[Scrn;'ay Sharma o. I(otak Mahindra Bankl)

33. All tl-rr: above facts clearly go to show that the claim of the petitioner oi one Enjamuri Janakamma being granted house t 2024 SCC Online SC 458 T/ site bearing plot No.70/A by issuing a patta initially in the year 2003 inn d she having sold the same said plot of land in lavour of the petitioner on 19.01.2009 under an agreement of sale, cannot be accepted as a valid c1aim, more particularly, in the light of the statement made by the 3.d respondent by the counter affidavit filed into the Court that the then Tahsildar, Sri B.Nara-vana Reddy, b-r, his letter, dt. 18.05.2023, having stated that he has not issued house site patta certificate to the petitioner's vcndor, Enjamuri Janakamma and the signature on the said patta certificate does not belong to him and is a forged srgnature.

34. Further, a perusal of the materia-l papers filed by the petitior-ier along with the writ petition, on the basis of which it is being claimed that the petitioner's vendor having been granted patta, at page 31, shows that the entry at Sl.No.396 to be an inscrted cntry being the last one and is also an incomplete entry as it only records two boundaries i.e., 'east & west' and does not mention the boundaries on 'north & sought' while all other entries above the said serial number mentions all the four boundaries. - 1B

35. Further, l.he extract at page 31, u,hich is stated to be extract of registcr of allotment of patta, shows tl-rt entries to be of tl-ie year 2() I 3, w'hilc the 1>e titioner claims her vendor having been granted patta in lhe ycar 2003, a decade bar:k, so also the filc number mcntioned on the top of the said extract as "B / 10954 l2() 1 1", would indicate that ti-re same to be relating to the year sub:;ec1ue nt to the alleged allotment in tl-re year 2003, which thc pc:titioncr claims of having sold to he.r in the year

36. For th,,' ziforesaid reasons. this Court is ol the vien, that the ciaim of thc pctitioner to the aforesaid plot of land is neither borne out from the record no1' can be accepted as a valid ciaim, and thus, the furrther the claim of the petitioner of the respondents alrthorities, 1n particular respondent Nos.4 & 5, seeking to interfere r.l,ith thc peaceful posscssion of the petitioner's house bearing door No.6-51 situated at Nereducherla Mandal, cannot be accepted as a valid claim, and thus, the Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merit. 37 . Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ) \ I 19

38. Further, as the claim of the petitioner to the subject land, as detailed above, is by way ol an encroachment on to the road of the layout, the petitioner is to be declared as an encroacher. ln vieu, of the settled position of law as enunciated in Lallu Yeshuant Singh us Rao Jagdish Singh & Orsz and Meghamala v/s, G, Narasimha Reddg3 that even lor eviction of an encroacher, due process of lavv is to be followed, this Court is of the lurther vie',v that the respondents-authorities are to be directed to follow due process of law whiie removing the encroachment made bv the petitioner on to the road in the subject iayout.

39. Cor-rsequentl,y, miscellaleous petitions, if any, pending shall stancl closed 1968 AtR 620 ' lzot 01 e scc 383 MALLIKARJUNA RAO ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER \ One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate One CC to SRI M.RAM IVOHAN REDDY, SC FO N/PCL IOPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADM & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, Hiqh Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies To 1 2 ?) 4 t o PSK. LS 1 H!-- . , ,,,' (. ,J tO J r{ 2 E c[T 2s5 .t \ (<g_,. HIGH COURT DATED:2310712025 ORDER WP.No.4218 of 2023 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ LD lod t