Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
B Nageswara Reddy, Kurnool Dist vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad 4 … on 14 February, 2025
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
1
APHC010579412016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3209]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No: 14345 of 2016
Between:
B.Nageswara Reddy ...PETITIONER
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary,
...RESPONDENTS
Revenue Department & 4 Others.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Mr.V.VINOD K REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)
2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
3. Mr.AKKAM ESHWAR
4. Mr.N.SRIRAM MURTHY
2
The Court made the following Order:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to
4 and learned counsel for the 5th respondent, who appeared through on line.
2. The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
".......to issue any writ, order or direction preferably in nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting assignment in
favour of the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.64
cents in Sy.No.547/B situated at Bukkapuram Village, Mahanandi Mandal,
Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the
Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to dispose of the
representation of the petitioner dated 03.03.2014 by granting assignment in
respect of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.18 cents in Sy.No.547/B
situated at Bukkapuram Village, Mahanandi Mandal, Kurnool District in favour of
the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstance of the case."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions with reference
to the averments made in the affidavit to the effect that the petitioner is in
occupation of land admeasuring Ac.2.64 cents in Sy.No.547/B of Bukkapuram
Village for more than a decade. He submits that the petitioner is cultivating the
said land by raising various crops and as he is a landless poor person, entitled
to get DKT patta from the Government. He submits that the petitioner made
an application to the 4th respondent seeking to grant assignment of the above
said extent of land in favour of the petitioner and the Mandal Revenue
Inspector submitted a report dated 19.01.2008 in that regard that the petitioner
is in possession of the subject matter property and entitled to DKT patta.
3
While so, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the unofficial
respondent No.5 was making false claims in respect of the subject matter land
raising a dispute and in those circumstances, the petitioner made a
representation dated 03.03.2014 reiterating his request for assignment of the
subject matter land in favour of the petitioner. He submits that as the said
representation did not yield any result, the petitioner was constrained to file
the present writ petition.
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, made
submissions with reference to the counter-affidavit filed along with the vacate
stay petition. He submits that the 5th respondent is an Ex-service man and
land i.e., Ac.3.40 cents in Survey No.547/B1 and Ac.1.60 cents in Survey
No.549/2 of Bukkapuram village was assigned to the 5th respondent vide DKT
patta in R.Dis.No.368/2002 dt.26.09.2002 and pattadar pass books and title
deeds were also issued in his favour. He further submits that as per the
enquiries conducted by the revenue officials, the petitioner is not in
possession and enjoyment of the subject matter land and further that no
application as stated by the petitioner is pending consideration for assignment.
In this regard, the learned Assistant Government Pleader had drawn the
attention of this Court to Para No.9, which reads as follows:
"9. In Reply to Para No.8 of the affidavit, it is submitted that as per record,
and enquiry it is revealed that the petitioner is not in possession and enjoyment
of the petition schedule land. So dispossession of the petitioner does not arise
from the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.64 cents in Sy.No.547/B situated
Bukkapuram Village, Mahanandi Mandal, Kurnool District. No application filed by
the petitioner before this office for assignment is pending. The writ petitioner is
4
not in possession of land Ac.2.64 cents in Sy.No.547/B and no land is available
in Sy.No.547/B. The petitioner is residing with his father and their family is having
Ac.6.22 cents of land and the petitioner as well as his father are not eligible for
assignment since they are not landless poor. The petitioner is also working as
fair price shop dealer."
5. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent made submissions with
reference to the material filed along with the counter-affidavit more particularly
the DKT patta dated 26.09.2002 assigning an extent of Ac.3.40 cents in
Sy.No.547/B1 and Ac.1.60 cents in Sy.No.549/2 as also the relevant notices
issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat. He had also drawn the attention of
this Court to Para No.5 of the affidavit and contended that the petitioner with a
malafide intention to grab the subject matter land had resorted to illegal
methods and in fact the petitioner and his father, who is the writ petitioner in
W.P.No.14334 of 2016 in possession of an extent of Ac.20.00 of dry land and
not eligible for any assignment of the Government land. While contending that
there are no merits in the writ petition, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the
material on record. At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that the official
as well as the unofficial respondents filed counter-affidavits along with the
vacate stay petitions in the year 2016. No reply-affidavits denying the specific
allegations made in the counters have been filed and thus the specific
assertions made in the counter affidavits referred to above have remained un-
rebutted.
5
7. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition.
The interim order granted on 26.04.2016 stands vacated. No order as to
costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________
NINALA JAYASURYA, J.
Date: 14.02.2025
BLV
6
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.14345 of 2016
Date: 14.02.2025
BLV
7
