Writ Petition No. 843 of 2010 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- L NARASIMHA REDDY
Outcome
Disposed of
Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the
Provisions considered
Judgment
The area of controversy in this writ petition is limited. It is in respect of Acs.05.05 cents of land in R.S.Nos.188/1 and 2 of Pentapadu Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. The ancestors of the petitioners herein purchased the land through a sale deed, dated
06.03.1952. Ancestors of the respondents 6 to 18 were lessees over the land. O.S.No.238 of 1952 was filed in the Court of District Munsif, Kovvur, for eviction of the tenants. The suit was decreed and the appeal filed against it, was dismissed. Possession is said to have been delivered in the process of execution of the decree. Proceedings under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion) into Ryotwari Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’), were initiated, and the Deputy Tahsildar, passed an order holding that the tenants are entitled for being granted patta, in respect of part of the land, as provided for under the Act. Various proceedings before the authorities under the Act and this Court ensued, and ultimately, the matter was remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, the 4th respondent, for fresh consideration and disposal. He passed an order, dated
08.07.2005, holding that the land is covered by the provisions of the Act, and the tenants were entitled for two-thirds and the landlords for one-third share. An appeal was preferred to the District Revenue Officer, by the petitioners herein. The appeal was dismissed on
03.12.2009. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a revision before the Chief Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent, together with an application for stay. Their grievance is that the 2nd respondent did not pass any orders, on the application for stay and that the Tahsildar, Pentapadu Mandal, the 5th respondent, is taking steps to dispossess them.
Operative part
Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondents 1 to 5, and Sri B.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.12. The only question that has to be decided by this Court is, as to whether the possession of the petitioners deserves to be protected, pending adjudication of the revision filed by the petitioners before the 2nd respondent. Respondent No.12 filed caveat. On her behalf, it was pleaded that the possession was delivered to her, on 22.01.2010, on the basis of the proceedings, dated 16.01.2010, issued by the 5th respondent. In the said proceedings, he has proceeded to divide the property into two parts, viz., two-thirds and one-third, and is said to have delivered an extent of Acs.3.37 cents, in favour of respondent No.12. This Court is rather surprised to know that the 5th respondent has taken upon himself the function of dividing the property. Even if the order passed by the 4th respondent has become final, the division ought to have taken place with the consent, or participation of the parties. It is not at all the function of the 5th respondent to divide the properties. His obligation to restore possession under the Act would be in respect of an identified and undisputed extent of land. Therefore, the proceedings, dated 16.01.2010, though are not in challenge, before this Court, cannot be permitted to defeat the rights of the petitioners. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the delivery of possession, said to have been effected by the 5th respondent, in favour of respondent No.12, shall be without any force in law, and that the petitioners shall be entitled to remain in possession of the entire land. The 2nd respondent shall dispose of the revision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as costs. Dt.08.02.2010. GJ _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Ryotwari Act, 1956.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.