l. I am the 4fr respondent herein and as such, I am well acquainted 2. Before going into the merits ofthe case, the brief history ofthe case

Transcription

1 u IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT FTYDERABAD For The State oftolangana and The State ofandhra pradesh Between: W.P.No of 2017 Naragani Puma Chandra Rao. AND l.the State ofandhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.... Petitioner... Respondents. I, M.Rajasekhara Rao, Son of Bangaraiah, aged 59 years, R/o. Jeelugumilli, Occu: Tahsildar, Jeelugumilli Mandat, West Godavari District, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state on oath as follows: l. I am the 4fr respondent herein and as such, I am well acquainted with the facts ofthe case. I have read the affidavit filed in suppon ofthe Writ Petition and I deny allrthe allegations made in the affidavit except those that are specifically admitted herein. 2. Before going into the merits ofthe case, the brief history ofthe case is as follows: (i) It is submitted that the averments made by the Writ petitioner are not correct and baseless. In this cornection, it is submitted that Sri Uda Lakshmi Prasada Rao has filed a petition on and it was forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddigudem for taking necessary action. The above petition was endorsed to this Office for enqulry. (id As per the petition of Sri Uda Lakshmi prasada Rao that his fbther Uda Venkanna has purchased the land in R.S.No.l70l4, Ac.4.7Z from A Vaz, Depor{Cn-t- I

2 2 Malladi Satyanarayana S/o Rambrahmam in the year 1959 by Registered Sale Deed. In charge TahsildAr without any documentary proof mutated the name of the Writ Petitioner in the online Revenue Accounts i.e., online Adangal and I-B through "Meebhoomi portal.', when verified the Adangal online record that the names of others were changed in R.S.No.l70l4 4c.4.72 in place of his name. He rcquested to rcmove the changed names in records and enter his name in his lands as he is a rightful owner. (iii) In the circumstances, the petiilon was referred to the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Jeelugumitli for field enquiry and verification ofvillage accounts. The Revenue Inspector, Jeelugumilli has enquired into the matter and reported that Sri'Uda Venkanna father of Sri Uda Lakshmi Prasada Rao of Mulagalamalli village has purchased an extent of Ac.3.72 in R.S.No.l70l4 of Ro*hugudem village vide Regd. Doc.No.4l and an extent of Ac.1.00 in R.S.No.l70l4 of Rowthugudem vide Regd. Doc. No.377l1959. Sri Uda Lakshmi prasadarao is uncle of the Writ Petitioner. The marital status of the said pattadar father attracts Bigamy. Sri Uda Venkanna first wife is having two daughters named Naragani Saraswathi & Sattemma. The second wife named Uda Kaikamma is having two daughten named Cherukubathula Chellayamma and Naragani Seetamahalakshmi and two slns named Sri Uda Lakshmi prasada Rao and Sri Uda Krishna Mohana Rao. Smt. Naragani Saraswathi is having three daughters named Mareedu Venkata Lakshmi, Uda Gowri, Mukku Sarojini and two sons namely Naragani poornachandra Rao and Naragani Sattiraju. Mukku Sarojini is having only daughter parasa Lakshmi Swaroopa. Uda Venanna died in the year 1976, (iv) The Special Dy. Collector, Tribal Welfare, K.R.puram trailed in S.R.No. 651/84, 652t84 and 329/90 for the tands in R.S.No.82l3, Ac.0.15, RS.No.83/2, Ac.2.57 of Mulagalampalli village and in RS.No.l70l4, Ac.4.72 of Ro*thugudem villages attracted in APSALT@ Act, 1970 and ejectment orders passed against Sri Uda Lakshmi prasada Rao and Sri Uda Krishna Mohan of Mulagalarnpalli village due to failure to attend before V- Ao.u Depon#t-

3 3 the Tribunal Court. As per the Orders of the Spl. Dy. Collector, Tribal Welfare, K.R.Puram the land yas assigned to the Tribes. (v) Aggrieved by the orders of the Spl. Dy. Collector, Tribal Welfare, K.R.Puram the respondents filed an appeal petition before the Agent to Govemment, West Godavari, Eluru. The Agent to Governnent has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the lower court orders in S.RA.No.l l/93, dated (copy enclosed). Aggrieved by the orders the respondent filed a revision before the Govemment of Andhra Pradesh. (vi) The Principal Secretary to Govemment, Social Welfare (LTR_I) Department has remanded the case to the Agent to Govemment vide G.O.Ms.No.l26, Social Welfare (LTR_I) Department, dr. 8.t (vii) Intum the Agent to Government, West Godavari, Eluru has remanded the case to the lower court for fresh enquiry vide SRA I l/1993, dated 20' The Spl. Dy. Collector, Tribal welfare, K.R.puram has taken on file and conducted enquiry and passed orders in favour ofsri Uda Lakshmi prasada Rao vide SR No.25l2005 dated (copy enclosed). He applied for mutation for his lands in R.S.No.l70l4 of Rowthugudem village. (viii) Sri Naragani Sattirajd (s/o venkateswara Rao) brother of writ Petitioner deposed in his statement stating that his grandfather is having two wives. First wife named Seetamma, second wife named Kaikamma. His mother named Saraswathi is the daughter ofhis grandmother Smt. Uda Seetamna. His uncle Sri Uda Lalahmi prasada Rao and Sri Uda Krishna Mohan are the sons of Smt. Uda Kaikamma (second wife of his grand fadier). In the year 1992 notice rribal welrare, K.R.puram,r", ;";..11"3"]"Y;?.5rlrH Act U70. Then the elders of his caste and Uda Laxmi prasadarao, Naragani Pumachandra nao, \_laa Xrishna Mohan and himself decided not to proceed further. His matemal uncle Sri Uda Lakshmi prasada Rao has filed an appeal and get the orders from the Court and further the Spl. Dy. v-w-, Depon?ft_-

4 4 Collector, Tribal Welfare, K.Rpuram has issued orders in favour of his uncle. Thenceforth Uda Lakshmi prasada Rao cultivating into the said t lands. He fi.rther stating that his father has given lands of Reddi Ganapavaram village of Buttaigudem Mandal in R.S.No.266, Ac.4.04 in favour of Naragani Pumachandra Rao and Ac.5.l0 in favour of Naragani Sattiraju through unregistered gift deed. Thereforc, the Writ petitioner already waived his title over the land covered by the present Writ Petitioner. (ix) As seen from the records, the Spl. Dy. Collector, Tribal Welfare, K.RPuram has issued orders in favour of Sri Uda Lakshmi prasada Rao S/o Venkanna as the lands are not hit by ApSALT@ Act" ll70 vide S.R. No dated After the Judgement issued by the Spl. Dy. Collector, Tribal Welfare, K.R.purarn, the then Tahsildar, Jeelugumilli Sri M. Bapuji has submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddigudem for cancellation of assignment pattas issued to Tribes vide Roc' @y. MRo), dated in the reference 3.d cited. It is further submitted that PESA Committee has also passed resolution in favour of Sri Uda Lakshmi prasada Rao that he is a rightful owner over the land in RS.No.l7\l4, Ac It is also revealed in enquiry that Sri Uda Lakshmi Prasada Rao is cgltivating the land since Subsequent changes of 'Meebhoomi portal,' effected by the Deputy Tahsildar in charge of Tahsildar period has no validity and that the changes were made without any documentary evidence. Due to which the then Deputy Tahsildar, Jeelugumilli was reverted to the cadre ofsenior Assistant. (x) The Writ petitioner may be put to strict proofoftitle possession and enjoyment of the land in R.S.No.l7014, Ac.4.72 of Rowthugudem village of Jeelugumilli Mandal. I finally submit that the Writ petition is devoid of merits as he has not made the land owner Sri Uda Lakshmi prasada Rao as party respondent to this q[it petition who is in possession and al1-ected Party. I request to appraise the fact that the Writ petitioner is a stranger to the land in R.s.No.rr0r4 by virtue of the orders of Govemment of Andhra 8";k+--

5 5 Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.l26 Social Welfare (LTRJ) Department, dated r/w orders of Special Deputy Collector (TW), K.R.puram in S.R.No.25l2005. The writt petition itself is not maintainable by the petitioner. 3. In reply to Para 2 ofthe affidavit, it is submitted that dre averments ofthe petitioner are not correct and the allegation that he is in possession of the land in R.S.No.l7014 Ac.t.86Cs, Rowthugudem village, Jeelugumilti Mandal are not correct and the petitioner shall be put to strict proof of the same as the burden of proof lies on him in terms of A.P.S.A.L.T. Regulation l/70. As seen from the orders of the Agent to Govemment, West Godavari,tEluru in SRA No. 9ll93, the Special Deputy Collector (T.W.), K.R.Puram issued notices to Uda Lakshmi prasada Rao, Uda Krishna Mohan of Mulagalampafli village, Jeelugumilliand informed them that the land in R.S.No.82l3, Ac.0.l5; R.S.No.83l2, Ac.2.57 of Mulagalampalli village and Ac.4.7Z n R.S.No.l70l4 of Rowthugudem villages athacted by the provisions of A.P.S.A.L.T.R l/70. In the said case the Writ Petitioner has not contested for the land covered by the show cause notice of Spl. Dy. Collecto(Tw), K.R.puram and the present Writ Petition. Further the caste elders decided that the writ petitioner is no way concemed with the land by Writ petitioner consequently Uda Lakshmi Prasadarao, Uda Krishna Mohan of Mulagalampalli village contested against the orders of the Spl. Dy. Collecto(TW), K.Rpuramupto the level of the Govemment of Andhra pradesh and got favourable orders in favour ofthem. In the resul! the Writ petitioner already waived his rights over the land in RS.No.l7Ol4, Ac.l.86Cts of Rowthugudem village, Jeelugumilli Mandal and thus the present claim for the land is barred by law. 4. In reply to Para 3 of.$e affidavit, it is submitred that the allegation in Para 3 the Writ petitioner has invented facts for the purpose of litigation and he may be put the strict proofofhis peaceful possession and enjoyment k-0"-. DepoiEht-

6 6 of his property, raising of Kandi crop. The Writ petitioner, in the in_ charge time of the Tahsildar, Jeelugumilli held by Dy. Tahsildar, Jeelugumilli managed by fta.rdutent means and mutated his name in the Goverrunent Website Meebhoomi portal and District Collector, West Godavari, Elum punished the Dy. Tahsildar, Jeelugumilli permanently reverted to Senior Assistant post. Therefore the mutations made bv the Deputy Tahsildar, Jeelugumilli has no validity. 5. In reply to Paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the averments made bythe writ petitioner are not correct and baseless. In this connection, it is submitted that Sri Uda Lakshmi prasada Rao has filed a petition on andrthe same was forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddigudem for taking necessary action. The above petition was endorsed to this Oflice for enquiry. As per the petition of Sri Uda Lakshrni prasada Rao that his father Uda Venkanna has purchased the land in R.S.No.170/4, Ac.4.7Z from Malladi Satyanarayana S/o Rambrahmam in the year 1959 by Registered Sale Deed. In charge Tahsildar without any documentary proof mutated the name of the Writ petitioner in the online Revenue Accounts i.e., online Adangal and I-B through.meebhoomi portal.,, when verified the Adangal online record that the namjs of others were changed in R.S.No.l70l4 4c.4.72 in place of his name. He requested to remove the changed names in records and re-enter his name in his lands as he is a rightfirl owner. In the circumstances, the petition was referred to the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Jeelugumilli for field enquiry and verification ofvillage accounts. The Revenue Inspector, Jeelugumilli enquired into the matter and reported that Sri Uda Venkanna father of Sri Uda Lakshmi prasada Rao of Mulagalamalli village has purchased an extent of Ac.3.72 in R.S.No.l7Ol4 of Rowthugudem viltage vide Regd. Doc.No.4l3 /1959 and an extent of Ac.l.00 in R.S.i!o.170/4 of Rowthugudem vide Regd. Doc. No.377l1959. Sri Uda Lakshmi prasadarao is uncle ofthe Writ petitioner. H;ke#-

7 7 The marital status ofthe said pattadar father is Bigamy relationship. Sri Uda Venkarrna first wife is having two daughters named Naragani Saraswathi & Sattemma. The second wife named Uda Kaikamma is having two daughters,"-.dt Ch"r,rkubuthula Chellayamma and Naragani Seetamahalakshmi and two sons named Sri Uda Lakshmi prasada Rao and Sri Uda Krishna Mohana Rao. Smt. Naragani Saraswathi is having three daughters named Mareedu Venkata Lakshmi, Uda Gowri, Mukku Sarojini and two sons namely Naragani poomachandra Rao and Naragani Sattiraju. Mukku Sarojini is having only daughter parasa Lakshmi Swaroopa. Uda Venarura died in th e year The Special Dy. Collector, Tribal Welfare, K.R.puram enquired LTR case in S.R.No ,652/84 and 329/gO for the lands in R.S.No.82l3, Ac.0.15, R.S.No.tZlZ, ec.\.sl of Mulagalampalli village and in RS.No.l70l4, Ac.4.72 of Rowthugudem villages attracted in APSALT@ Acr 1970 and ejectment orders passed against Sri uda Lakshmi prasada Rao and Sri Uda Krishna Mohan of Mulagalampalli village due to failure to attend before the Tribunal Court. As per the Orders of the Spl. Dy. Collector, Tribal Welfare, K.R.puram the land was assigned to the Tribes. Hence the ayerments of the Writ petitioner are not maintainable. :. 1. *,, to para 6 of the affidavit, it is submitted rhat during inspection of land with reference to the records the 4h respondent herein went to the land covered by the Writ petitioner and that Writ petitioner nor his representatives attended to the inspection. The contention of the Writ Petitioner that the land in R.S.No.l7014, Ac.1.86Cts for the last 22 years is not maintainable as the land was assigned to the tribes and the Tahsildar, Jeelugumilli named Sri M. Bapuji submifted report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddigudem for cancellation of the assignment pattas issued to Tribes vide Roc (Dy.I!RO), dated O6 and the PESA Committee also rgsolved in favour of land owner named Uda HJk#L

8 r8 Lakshmi Prasada Rao. The said documents are enclosed and may be read as part of the counter. 7. In reply to Paras 7 to 9 ofthe affidavi! it is submitted that the Writ Petitioner filed the Writ Petition with the invented facts to get wrongful gain and in the circumstances this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition. 't In view of the above, there are no merits in the above writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons stated above, it is therefore prayed that this Hon,ble Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order granted on in WPMP.No of 2017 n W.p.No. 343 I 0 of 20 I 7 and dismiss the writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon,ble court may deem fit and proper in the cirgumstances ofthe case. Solemnly and sincerely affirmed On this the day of November, 2017 and signed his name in my Presence. \r'[.- Depon#t- Before me I t