IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 13374 of 2001 Between: Kommu Venkati S/o Narsaiah R/o Kothapally Village, Karimnagar Mandal & District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar. 2 Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Kothapally Village, Karimnagar District. 3 G.Srinivasa Rao, S/o Premanandam, R/o Kothapally Village (Haveli) Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: i) declaring the order of the Respondent No.1 in letter No.A3/653/2000-pts, dt: 12-3-2001 and consequent notice of the Respondent No.2 dt: 26-6-2001 as arbitrary, illegal without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same and pass such other suitable orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL Nos.1 & 2: DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI V. MANOHAR RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 13374 of 2001 O R D E R : The writ petition is filed seeking for issuance of mandamus, declaring the order of the first respondent, District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar, in Lr.No. A3/653/2000-PTS dated 12-3-2001 and consequent notice dated 26-6-2001 issued by the second respondent, Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Kothapali village (Haveli), Karimnagar district, as bad, illegal, without jurisdiction and consequently to set aside the same. 2. The third respondent is a party respondent and consequent to his death, during the pendency of the writ petition by an order dated 26-4-2006 in WPMP.NO. 322 of 2006, the respondents 4 to 6 have been brought on record as the legal representatives of late Sri . Srinivasa Rao, the third respondent in the writ petition. 3. By letter No.A3/653/2000-Pts, dated 12-3-2001, the District Panchayat Officer sought to cancel the permission granted to the petitioner vide Lr.No./A2/62/GPK/2000, dated 25-5-2000 for construction of a compound wall and declaring that the petitioner has no right over the land in question and consequently the second respondent, Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Kothapalli (v) and Haveli issued the notice dated 26-6-2001 informing the petitioner to remove the structures made in survey No.69 which are impugned in the writ petition. 4. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of an extent of Ac:0-4 ½ guntas of land in survey no. 69 of Kothapalli (v) and Haveli of Karimnagar district. He purchased the said land under a registered sale deed dated 23-7-1975 from his predecessor-in-title. When there was a dispute in connection with the said land, he was constrained to file OS.No. 3 of 1976 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Karimnagar for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the defendants therein; namely, Permandla Pochaiah, Gadamalla Sugyam Rao and Gadamalla Pushpamma, as they tried to interfere with his possession and denied his title. The learned District Munsif, Karimnagar, by judgment and decree dated 24.11.1977 decreed the suit in his favour. Consequently, he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property by constructing a shed with a compound wall as a rightful owner. It was his case that he filed an application before the first respondent to set right the anomalies appearing in the pahanies regarding the extent in survey Nos. 69 and 840 of Kothapalli village of Karimnagar Mandal and district . 5. The Assistant Director of Survey and Settlement after conducting a detailed survey held that survey no. 69 consists of Ac:0-19 guntas but due to inadvertence only Ac:0-19 guntas is being entered in the pahanies against survey no. 69 and the remaining extent of Ac:0-10 guntas was shown in survey no. 840. One Smt. Pushparagam wife of Premanandam, who is also called Gadamalla Pushpamma claimed ownership to an extent of Ac:04 ½ guntas in survey no.69. In the suit filed by the petitioner in OS.No.3 of 1976, the said Pushpamma is arrayed as Defendant No.3. Respondent No.1 failed to take into consideration the decree of declaration and perpetual injunction in his favour and held that he has no right and title in survey no.69. The Respondent No.1 have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the title of any individual, much less the petitioner. The very application filed against wrong entries in the pahanies before the first respondent, is not maintainable. The first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal. The impugned order passed by the first respondent is without jurisdiction. 6. No counter has been filed by the respondents in the writ petition. 7. It appears that the petitioner had purchased an extent of Ac:04 ½ guntas of land in survey no. 69 of Kothapalli (v) of Karimnagar Mandal and district under a registered sale deed dated 23-7-1975. Pursuant to the dispute, in connection with the ownership of the said land, the petitioner was made to file O.S.No. 3 of 1976 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Karimnagar seeking for declaration of title and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he has constructed a shed and a compound wall in his land. Based on his application, the Assistant Director of Survey and Settlement, conducted enquiry and held that survey no.69 consists of Ac: 0-19 guntas but due to inadvertence only Ac:0-09 guntas was entered in the pahanies in survey no. 69 and remaining extent of Ac:0-10 guntas was shown in survey no.840. The further case of the petitioner is that taking advantage of the same, the party respondent had started claiming right over the land in question. 8. The main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is nothing to do with the land of the party respondent in connection with survey nos. 840 and 69/A. He is the owner of an extent of Ac:0-4 ½ guntas in survey no.69 having purchased the same from his predecessor-in-title under a registered sale deed dated 23-7- 1975 and has been declared as absolute owner by virtue of a judgment and decree dated 24-11-1977 passed in OS.No.3 of 1976 by the learned District Munsif, Karimnagar. When he wanted to construct in the said land, he applied for permission, which was granted in his favour in Lr.No.A2/62/GPK/2000, dated 25-5-2000. The dispute that is involved before the first respondent was with regard to correction of wrong entries that has been made in the revenue records in connection with the land claimed by the petitioner and the land claimed by the third respondent, over which, the first respondent had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It is also his case that since the petitioner had already been declared as the owner of the land by the competent civil court, which was not at all considered by R-1. Without considering the same, the first respondent held that the petitioner had no right over the land claimed by him. It is his case that the first respondent has no jurisdiction. Consequently, it is stated that the notice dated 26-6-2001 issued by the second respondent is also without jurisdiction, as it is consequential to the letter issued by the first respondent. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that absolutely in the manner in which the first respondent adjudicated the issue is without any jurisdiction and he adjudicated the matter with regard to the title of the petitioner, which has been already declared by the competent civil court. Therefore, both the authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the title of land in question. 9. Therefore, I am of the view that the respondents 1 and have committed an error in issuing the impugned letter and the same has been set aside, holding that the petitioner has no right over the land in question and hence the same is set aside. However, liberty is given to the petitioner and party respondent to make an appropriate application to the concerned authorities seeking permission, if any, required for them to make any construction in their respective land. 9. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 19-11-2008. I s L ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSKM}