Chennuru Krishna Reddy, S/O. Subbarami Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors

Subba Reddy Satti, J

Heard Sri T.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Ms.Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 2 & 3, Ms.Kranthi, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned standing counsel for 4th respondent and Sri Ch.C.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the 5th respondent.

a) Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioner’s ancestors constructed a homestead in the agricultural lands in S.No.275 of Althurthi village, Podhalakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. In front of Homestead, a road that existed connecting the main road belongs to the Althurthi Gram Panchayat. The said road is in S.Nos.273 and 274. In the Re-Settlement Register of the village, it was noted that an extent of Ac.5.50 cents in S.No.273 and Ac.1.81 cents in S.No.274 as Government (Sarkar). For rainwater and road, the Government demarcated Ac. 0.90 cents in S. No. 273 and Ac. 0.21 cents in S. No. 274. In Ac.0.21 cents in S.No.274, where the road existed, is the only connecting road for the ingress and egress of the petitioner. If the road is closed for any reason, the petitioner has no other way of access to the main road for ingress and egress.

b) The 5th respondent, a doctor by profession, who owns land in S.No.273, intends to grab the land of an extent of Ac.0.21 cents in S.No.274, Government land. He influenced various Government authorities and claimed title over the property and tried to fence the road. The petitioner submitted objections to the 2nd respondent, RDO, and the 3rd respondent, Tahsildar, on 16.06.2021 and 18.06.2021. The petitioner also made an application on 02.06.2021 to the Public Information Officer to secure a copy of the 8-A Register with Registered No.39-58 of Althurthi village. The said application was forwarded to the Tahsildar, Podhalakuru, on 05.06.2021, to furnish the copies of the same; however, the same was not provided.

c) The 3rd respondent-Tahsildar is trying to handover the road in an extent of Ac.0.21 cents in S.No.274 with the police aid to the 5th respondent. Any document, either registered or unregistered, regarding Ac.0.21 cents in S.No.274 will not confer any title in favour of the 5th respondent. The 3rd respondent, Tahsildar, transferred the road in Ac.0.21 cents in S.No.274, and the 5th respondent is determined to close the road and hence, this writ petition.

I.A.No.1 of 2021 was filed to direct the 3rd respondent, Tahsildar, not to convert the road into private land, pending disposal of the writ petition. The writ petition was admitted on 28.10.2021, and an interim order of status quo was granted initially for a period of six weeks and thereafter, on 25.11.2021, the same was extended until further orders.

a) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that no Gram Panchayat road exists in S.No.273 and 274 connecting the homestead of the petitioner to the main road. However, there existed a road in S.Nos.273 and 274 in an extent of Ac.0.07 cents and Ac.0.22 cents respectively. In the RSR of the village, it was noted against S.No.274 as “Kalidari”, which means footpath. The footpath normally measures to an extent of 5 feet, and it will not measure up to an extent of Ac.021 cents. In RSR, patta lands are denoted as Government dry or wet lands. Any lands used for public purpose i.e. roads, footpaths, streams, are denoted as Government poramboke. In this case, an extent of Ac.5.50 cents in S.No.273 and Ac.1.81 cents in S.No.274 are patta lands vested in the name of the 5th respondent. In RSR, Ac.0.21 cents was not demarcated for the road. In the remarks column against S.No.274 it was noted as “Kalidari”. The petitioner cannot claim Ac.0.21 cents in S.No.274, which is patta land of the 5th respondent.

b) The 3rd respondent is not converting any Government land in favour of the 5th respondent. The main road connecting the junction to the Althurthi village passes through an extent of Ac.0.22 cents in S.No.274, and an extent of Ac.0.07 cents in S.No.273, which is intact, and the public transport is being carried out as usual. The petitioner misrepresented the facts to hide his encroachment to an extent of Ac.0.06 cents in S.No.274, which is evident from the survey sketch of the Divisional Inspector of Survey, office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore.

c) The conversion proposal has been submitted for an extent of Ac.1.62 cents in S.No.274, exempting an extent of Ac.0.19 cents, which is the existing main road and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

The 4th respondent filed a separate counter affidavit. It was contended, inter alia, that as per 10(1) Account of Althurthi village, S.No.274 is classified as Patta land of the 5th respondent and his name is shown as pattadar and possessor. The question of converting the public road to private land does not arise, and thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

A separate counter affidavit was filed by the 5th respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that he is the owner of Ac.1.81 cents in S.No.274 and Ac.5.50 cents in S.No.273. The 5th respondent’s father purchased the said land under a registered sale deed dated 06.10.1966 from Rajanala Narasimhaiah and others. After the death of his father, the said land was devolved upon the 5th respondent. The revenue authorities updated the records of right and issued pattadar pass book and the title deed. The 5th respondent raised groundnut crop and lemon trees etc. There is another way to reach the petitioner’s house, and he has been using the same. The 5th respondent specifically denied the allegation of the petitioner regarding the existence of a road in Ac.0.21 cents in S.No.274 and conversion of land etc., and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respective respondents, reiterated the contentions as per the averments in the writ affidavit and counter affidavits.

The petitioner filed a copy of RSR (Ex.P3), representation dated 16.06.2021 (Ex.P5), another representation dated 18.06.2021 (Ex.P6), communication from the Public Information Officer, Nellore, to the Tahsildar, Podalakur, dated 05.06.2021 and electricity bills in support of his case. The 5th respondent filed ROR 1-B extract, a copy of the registered sale deed dated 06.10.1966 and a copy of pattadar pass book in support of his case.

The main contention of the petitioner is that an extent of Ac.0.21 cents in S.No.274, out of Ac.1.81 cents, is being used as a road (Kalidari). In fact, on careful perusal of Ex.P3 RSR, against S.No.274 the extent mentioned is Ac.1.81 cents and the names of Patnam Narasimhayya and Rajanala Ramayya are mentioned as Pattadar/Inamdar/Manager. In column No.14, it was mentioned as “Kalidari”.

The 5th respondent’s father purchased Ac.1.81 cents in S.No.274 and Ac.5.50 cents in S.No.273 under a registered sale deed dated 06.10.1966 from Rajanala Narasimhayya and others. Even the name of the 5th respondent was updated in the records of rights, and the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book and the title deed. The registered document, whereby the father of the 5th respondent purchased the property, is of the year 1966, and not of recent origin.

It is also pertinent to mention here that in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it was specifically mentioned that the patta lands in RSR are denoted as Government. If any land is used for a public purpose i.e. roads, footpath, streams, it would be denoted as Government poramboke.

In the teeth of averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, describing the land in S.No.181 cents in S.No.274 of Althurthi village as Government, but not Government poramboke, column No.13, the names of Patnam Narasimhayya and Rajanala Ramayya were mentioned, and the father of the 5th respondent purchased the property from the Narasimhayya and others, the land of an extent of Ac.1-81 cents in S.No.274 cannot be termed as government poramboke. Going by the averments in the writ affidavit, the petitioner is mainly using the said road for ingress and egress to reach his homestead as a right of easement. However, the petitioner failed to demonstrate the same by placing cogent material.

In Meher Fatirna Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad 2006 SCC OnLine AP 48 : (2006) 2 ALD 440, a learned single judge of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, held thus:

“10. … … The petitioner's Counsel contends that there is a road on the southern side of the petitioner's property, leading to the road in Survey No. 27 connecting to National Highway, the Topo Plan filed by the third respondent does not support such a view. Indeed, if there was a road on the southern side of the property claimed by the petitioner, the same must reflect in the Schedule appended to Sale Deed, dated 28.1.1998, and/or rectification deed, dated 21.11.2000. A perusal of these two documents would show that southern boundary of the petitioner's property is shown as Survey No. 27 of Government graveyard. These two documents belie the contention that there was a pathway ght on the southern side leading to the road in Survey No. 27. … Insofar as alternative submission that the petitioner has been using the pathway abutting the Police Sentry Room, the same cannot be accepted unless there is a proper Court declaration. Section 15 of Indian Easements Act, 1882 (the Easements Act) is to the effect that where the access to land has been enjoyed peaceably for a period of twenty years, a right by prescription accrues. In the case of Government land, one should prove that he/she has been using the access to the land for thirty years. The petitioner admittedly purchased the property in Survey No. 26 in January, 1998, and even if she has been using - as a matter of convenience; the vacant land to reach the road in Survey No. 27, unless and until proper evidence is let in by the petitioner in an appropriate proceeding, that there has been such access to her land through Government land for thirty years, she cannot succeed in claiming the right of access. This aspect of the matter cannot be decided in the writ petition. In that view of the matter, the dispute being a civil dispute, the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court for a declaration of easementary right under the Easements Act. A writ petition is not a proper remedy.” (emphasis is mine)

In fact as discussed supra, concerning demarcation of Ac.0.21 cents in S.No.274, no documents are available, and the petitioner also failed to produce any document in respect to said contention.

This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, normally will not declare title in respect of a particular land. The declaration of title, if any, would be made by a competent Civil Court after recording evidence. The registered document filed by the 5th respondent, coupled with the RSR filed by the petitioner and other revenue records filed by the 5th respondent, in the considered opinion of this Court, prima facie, supports the plea of the 5th respondent vis-à-vis title to the property. This court is conscious that no declaration can be granted and hence no declaration was made in that regard. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any infringement of the right and the corresponding obligation on the part of the officials. There are no merits in the writ petition, and the writ petition is devoid of merits; hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Dismissed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.