THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.4922 of 2005 DATED 11.2.2008 Between: Damaraju Veeranjaneya Swamy and four others. .. PETITIONERS versus The Director of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and six others. .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.4922 of 2005 ORDER: This Court issued Rule Nisi on 14.3.2005 and in WPMP. No.6549 of 2005 directed status quo to be maintained as to the nature and possession of the land in question. Counter affidavit of 5th respondent is filed. 2. Heard Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and also Sri G.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel representing 7th respondent. 3. WPMP No.949 of 2008 is filed praying for interim direction to issue necessary directions to the respondents to enable the petitioners to grant lease in favour of the proposed lessee in respect of the land measuring 2 acres in S.No.487 (PattaNo.151) of Nellipudi village, Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District and for passing such other suitable orders. 4. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proposed action of the respondents in trying to grant lease to the third parties in respect of the schedule land in an extent of 120 acres covered by S.No.436 and 487 (patta No.151) of Nellipudi village of Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, by dispossessing the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential order directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings including dispossession of the petitioners from the land in an extent of 120 acres covered by S.Nos.436 and 487 (patta No.151) of Nellipudi village of Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District and pass such other suitable orders. 5. The petitioners state that they are permanent residents of Nellipudi village of Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, which is an Agency area. The villages Nellipudi and Kuramgondi are Mokasa villages. One late Madhuveeti Yerramraju has been rewarded for his distinguished services rendered during the Rampa disturbances conditions. After the demise of Madhuveeti Yarramraju, his son Raja Madhuveeti Peda Rama Bhoopathi Deo Garu was registered as successor on 8.6.1989 and he was acting as Mukasadar of these two villages and he died on 3.8.1905 leaving his wife M.Ramayamma, his younger brother China Rama Bhoopathi Deo and two daughters viz., Venkayamma, Surayamma and a son Madhuveeti Yarram Raju, who were minors at that time. Subsequently, his son Madhuveeti Yarram Raju was also granted a Sanad of the village Nellipudi of Yellavaram Division vide G.O.Ms.No.1230, dated 10.7.1907 and granted permanent patta. Accordingly, M.Yarram Raju has been declared as Mukasadar of both the villages Nellipudi and Kuramgondi of Yallavaram Division. It is also stated that it is pertinent to state that late M.Yarram Raju filed OS No.3 of 1938 against one Krishnamma for recovery of arrears of rent and likewise one D.Ammanna also filed suit OS No.4 of 1938 questioning the enhancement of rent against M.Yarram Raju and these two suits were clubbed together and passed a common judgment in his favour while dismissing the suit OS No.4 of 1938 by decreeing the suit OS No.3 of 1938. Aggrieved by the common judgment, two appeals were preferred in AS Nos.2 of 1941 and 3 of 1941 before the Agent to the Government of Madras. The two appeals were dismissed by common judgment dated 3.10.1941 holding that the Nellipudi village was granted to the Mukasadar and all the ryots in the village are directed to pay the rents to Mukasadar and it is further held that it is not an Estate and the Mukasadar is entitled to collect rentals including enhancement for use and occupation. It is not out of place to state that the said Madhuveeti Yarram Raju adopted the 8th respondent on 11.3.1987, as he has no issues and also a Will was executed in his favour on 18.8.1988, bequeathing all properties including the rights accrued under the Sanad granted by the Government in GO Ms.No.1239, dated 10.7.1907. Thus, the 8th respondent has inherited the rights from Madhuveeti Yarram Raju, Mukasadar, after his demise on 19.7.1990. While the matters stood thus, during the life time of Raja Madhuveeti Yarram Raju, the father of the 8th respondent has granted an extent of 160 acres covered by S.Nos.436 and 487 in patta No.151 in favour of his father i.e., late Damaraju Venkataswamy on 5.4.1956 under Krushika Patta and handed over possession of these lands to his father. Eversince, his father had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same till his death i.e., 6.11.1984 and thereafter petitioners came into possession of the scheduled land as the 3rd petitioner’s father died intestate. Even during the life time of his father, they have been cultivating the lands along with their father. After the demise of his father, they filed a petition to the then Mukasadar late Raja Madhuveeti Yarram Raju, requesting him to grant ‘Krushik Pattas’ in the names of the petitioners. Considering their request, late Raja Madhuveeti Yarramraju had granted Krushik pattas in their favour in the year 1990 i.e., on 6.4.1990, of an extent of 53 acres in favour of the 1st petitioner, 35 acres in favour of the 2nd petitioner, 14 acres in the name of the third petitioner, 33 acres in favour of 4th petitioner and 25 acres in favour of 5th petitioner. It is not out of place to state that out of 160 acres of land, the 1st petitioner was given 40 acres of land at the first instance and when the respondents were trying to dispossess the 1st petitioner, he filed Writ Petition No.21228 of 2001 and the same was admitted and an interim direction of status quo was also granted with regard to possession of the petitioner is concerned in WPMP No.26769 of 2001, dated 3.12.2001. At that point of time, the Revenue and Mines Department officials tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the land measuring 40 acres, as such the writ petitioners have confined their relief to the extent of 40 acres only. Now the petitioners are filing the present Writ Petition in respect of the remaining extent of 120 acres of land in the same S.Nos.436 and 487 (patta No.151) of Nellipudi village. It is also further stated that when the people belong to Jana Sakthi Organising Rytu Cooli Sangham are trying to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property with deadly weapons, they made a complaint to the 6th respondent for taking necessary action against the persons concerned. In response to their complaint, the 6th respondent had issued notice to the persons responsible for the said acts and the proceedings are still pending before the 6th respondent. Though the proceedings are pending with the 6th respondent, people styling themselves as members of Rytu Cooli Sangham have not stopped their illegal activities, as such the 4th petitioner had filed OS No.51 of 2003 for grant of permanent injunction and the District Judge granted interim injunction on 2.7.2003 and ultimately the suit was decreed in his favour on 20.1.2005. Likewise, the petitioners filed three suits i.e., OS Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of 2004 for grant of permanent injunction on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Rampachodavaram. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after having satisfied with the records, granted ad-interim injunction in IA No.8 of 2004 on 24.5.2004 and the said suits are still pending consideration. It is also stated that though the respondents have no right nor justification in trying to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, are taking steps to dispossess them as there is no order of this Court in respect of the land to an extent of 120 acres out of total extent of 160 acres. In fact, in the Writ Petition filed by the 1st petitioner, counter affidavit had been filed by the 1st respondent therein, who is the 5th respondent herein, wherein in para 5 it was categorically admitted their possession and enjoyment and also granting of the Krushik pattas in favour of his father on 5.4.1956, but stated in view of the status quo orders granted by this Court in respect of 40 acres of land, no action could be taken for grant of quarry lease to the society or any other individual, and more so in view of the dispute of title over the land. The 1st respondent on the recommendations of the 5th respondent had issued proceedings No.24226/R1-1/2004, dated 9.9.2004, in favour of one V.Malla Reddy for a period of 20 years for excavation of colour granite over an extent of 2 hectares in S.No.436 of Nellipudi village, Ganvaram Mandal. Petitioners filed WP No.1613 of 2005 on the file of this Court questioning the said proceedings and this Court made status quo order in WPMP No.2146 of 2005 on 4.2.2005. Further it is stated that the Government issued GO Ms.No.432, dated 22.3.2003 under Section 13(2) of the Regulation of 1 of 89 read with Rule 22 calling for objections from concerned ryots and Mukasadars in the said villages and to that effect the petitioners filed objections and the said objections are pending consideration before the Commissioner and Director of Settlement Authority. Unless and until the said objections and patta proceedings are finalized under Regulation 1 of 89, the respondents have no right and jurisdiction to dispossess the petitioners from the land in their occupation. So, the action of the respondents to dispossess the petitioners from their possession is not only violation of provisions of Regulation 1 of 89 but also unconstitutional and offend Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is also stated that the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent are ex facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. The respondents 1, 5 and 6 have no right no justification in issuing the present impugned proceedings in favour of the third parties knowing pretty well that these lands are Mokasa lands and the revenue authorities have nothing to do with the said lands. In fact, Regulation 2/69 nor 1/89 will attract to the lands in question because A.P.Mutta (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Regulation (1959), does not deal with Mokasa and Mokasadar as they are different connotations from the word Mutta and Muttadars. In fact, in GO Ms.No.1009, Revenue (J) Department, dated 9.10.1974, the Government of A.P. stated that the Regulation No.2/69 does not attract the Mokasa in the Agency Area and therefore, the tenure of Mokasa cannot be abolished under the said Regulation. Respondents 1, 5 and 6 to the reasons best known to them, have issued the proceedings though they have no jurisdiction over the schedule land. In fact, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, no lease can be granted in favour of a single individual in respect of land situated in the Agency Area. Even assuming that the revenue authorities have right over the land, the 1st respondent cannot grant any lease basing on the recommendations made by the revenue authorities. Unless and until the petitioners’ pattas are cancelled, the respondents cannot dispossess them. It is pertinent to state that the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Gangavaram had addressed a letter dated 9.7.1999 to the Project Officer, I.T.D.A. Rampachodavaram stating that the land in question is Mukasa land but not Government land. The petitioner No.3 filed 10-1 Adangal relating to 1343 Fasli, where it was stated that his father was granted permanent Krushik patta by late Madhuveri Yarram Raju who is Mukasadar. The subordinates of the respondents have visited the petitioners’ lands on 2.3.2005 and started taking measurements. Then the petitioners objected the illegal action and questioned them why they are taking measurements without their knowledge. The subordinates of the respondents did not give positive reply stating that they need not give any reply as they are taking measurements on the instructions of their superior officers. Immediately, petitioners proceeded to the office of the respondents 5 and 6 where they were told that they are going to give lease in favour of third parties after completion of all the formalities. The petitioners questioned the proposed action of the respondents and they also brought to the notice of the respondents the order of status quo granted by this Court in respect of two hectares of land and they were told by the respondents 5 and 6 that there is no stay in respect of this extent of land as such they can grant lease in favour of the third parties as per their wish. In fact the petitioners were informed that there are several proceedings pending before the competent authority and the pattas are still subsisting. So long as the pattas are in favour of the petitioners, they cannot proceed with the impugned action of granting lease in favour of the persons of their choice. The respondents may, at any moment, issue proceedings and on issuance of such proceedings, they may take possession of the schedule land. If the petitioners are dispossessed without notice, they will be put to irreparable loss and more so, it violates principles of natural justice and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the writ petitioners approached this Court for appropriate reliefs as specified supra and an order of status quo had been made as referred to above. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent it is stated that it is a fact that a quarry lease for Colour Granite for a period of 20 years over an extent of 2,000 hectares in RS No.436 of Nellipudi village, Gangavaram Agency, East Godavari District was granted in favour of V.Malli Reddy by the 1st respondent vide Proc. No.24226/R1-1/20904, dated 9.9.2004 basing on recommendation of the 5th respondent after obtaining report from the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent informed in his report RS No.436 covered by hill over an extent of 2.000 hectares classified as Government land, applied area is available for grant of quarry lease. Accordingly the 5th respondent submitted grant proposals to the 1st respondent. The granted V.Malli Reddy had submitted required documents for execution of quarry lease and the office of the 5th respondent had executed the Lease Deed and issued work order vide Proceedings No.3481/Q1/2004, dated 5.10.2004 in favour of granted V.Malli Reddy. Further, the 1st petitioner filed WP No.1613 of 2004 in this Court and this Court granted status quo order in WPMP No.2146 of 2004 on 4.2.2005 which is pending. It is also stated that as per 5th respondent concerned, 3 Colour Granite quarry leases are pending for process and the details are as hereunder: Sl.No. Name of the applicant Location and extent applied Inspection proposed on and for date of inspection Present stage 1 Sri Kishan Gugoloth File No.3705/Q1/2004 Sl.No.436 Nellipudi village, Gangavaram (M), E.G. District. 20.00 Hcs. 13.10.2004 on 1.11.2004 & 9.5.2005 on 28.5.2005. The applicant not attended f or survey and inspection both the dates 2 M/s. S.V.S. Granites File No.1195/Q1/2005. S.No.487/P, Nellipudi (v), Gangavaram (M), E.G. District. 27.6.2005 on 19.7.2005. Not completed survey and inspection. 3 M/s. Sri Mutyalamma A b y u d a y a LCC Society. S.No.487/P, Nellipudi (v), Gangavaram (M), E.G. District. 5.000 Hcs. 27.6.2005 on 19.7.2005. Not completed survey and inspection. The petitioner has alleged that survey measurements were taken on 2.3.2005 is totally false and the petitioner never approached 5th respondent in person for protesting for grant of Colour Granite lease to others, but there was a representation from the petitioner to the District Collector, a copy of the same is marked to the office of the 5th respondent stating an extent of 14.00 acres belongs to the petitioner situated in RS Nos.436 and 487 of Nellipudi (v), Gangavaram (M), East Godavari District. Further, the petitioner in his affidavit said that two Revenue survey numbers covering extent of 120 acres without producing any evidence of his scheduled property land bounded by borders i.e., where it is located and concerned FMB and simply contending his property without any details. Further, the 5th respondent’s role is after obtaining from the 6th respondent regarding classification and availability of the area for grant of leases only, process the application either for grant or rejection. It is also averred that the 5th respondent role is after receipt of quarry lease applications in any Mandal, refer to the concerned Mandal Revenue Officers for classification and availability of the land applied for and after receipt of the report only, 5th respondent office process for disposal. 7. In the light of the facts and circumstances and the specific stand taken in the counter affidavit, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Writ Petition be disposed of to issue suitable directions to the respondents to enable the petitioners to grant lease in favour of the proposed lessee relating to the subject matter of the Writ Petition in accordance with law. 8. With the direction indicated above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- 11.2.2008 SSR Issue order copy tomorrow. (BO)