IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 262 of 2002 Between: 1. Koritala Hymavathi W/o. Late K. Subba Rao, R/o. 5th Line, Vikas Nagar, Guntur. 2. Koritala Ravindrababu, S/o. Late K. Subba Rao, R/o. 5th Line, Vikas Nagar, Guntur. 3. Koritala Srinivas, S/o. Late K. Subba Rao, R/o. 5th Line, Vikas Nagar, Guntur. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 State of A.P., Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Nellore. Rep. by its Presiding Officer, (Addl.) Revenue Divisional Officer, 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Guntur,. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nadendla, Guntur 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 issue an appropriate Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in not disposing off the C.C.NO. 1642/ATK/75, as per the directions given in L.R.A. No. 4/1991 is illegal, intentional, malafide, arbitrary, and also further declare that the action of the 3rd Respondent in interfering with our lands at Sathaluru village as illegal, arbitrary, malafide and consequently direct that 1st Respondent do decide C.C. 1642/ATK/75, as per the directions given in L.R.A. No. 4/1991 and pass all necessary orders for the said purpose. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.BHANU PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.262 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not disposing of the C.C.No.1642/ATK/75, as per the directions given in L.R.A.No.4/1991 and further the 3rd respondent interfering with the lands at Sathaluru Village, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent to decide the C.C.No.1642/ATK/75 as per the directions given in LRA.No.4/1991. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners 1 to 3 are the wife and sons of late K.Subba Rao, respectively, who was declared as surplus holder of land under A.P. Land Reforms Act, in C.C.No.1642/ATK/75 to an extent of 0.7452 standard holding. Earlier, the said Subba Rao proposed to surrender Acs.11.57½ cents of land situated in Sathaluru village of Chilakaluripet Taluk, presently, which is under Nadendla Mandal of Guntur district, and also about Acs.12.21 cents of land in Thanamachinthala of earstwhile Darsi Taluk in Prakasam district and the said proposals were pending. While so, the said Subba Rao submitted a petition on 03-12- 1982 informing the Land Reform Tribunal, Nellore that he wants to retain the lands at Sathaluru village and wanted to surrender the lands at D.C.Palli village in Nellore district. Again, when the matter is not disposed of, in one way or the other, he again made an application on 13-03-1984 requesting the Land Reforms Tribunal to accept the alternative proposal and the same was also pending. However, the Tribunal negatived the alternative proposals made by the said Subba Rao by an order dated 31-12-1990. Aggrieved by the same, the said Subba Rao filed W.P.No.729 of 1991 stating that he is still in possession and enjoyment of lands in Sathaluru village of Guntur district as well as lands at D.C.Palli and that his proposal for surrender of alternative lands was not disposed of. The said writ petition was disposed of on 22-01-1991 holding that the petitioner approached the Court directly without availing the alternative remedy available to him. Further, the petitioner was permitted to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order and status quo was also ordered as on the date of the order for a period of four weeks from the date of the order made in the said writ petition. Pursuant to the order made in the said writ petition, said Subba Rao filed an appeal in L.R.A. No.4 of 1991 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal at Nellore questioning the final determination order dated 31-12-1990 passed in C.C. No.1642/ATK/75. The appellate Tribunal by order dated 03-08-1998 set-aside the order dated 31-12-1990 and remanded the matter to the primary Tribunal with the following direction: “In the result in view of the findings under points 1 & 2 the order dt.31-12-1990 of the Primary Tribunal is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Primary Tribunal with a direction to consider afresh the feasibility of the alternative proposals made by the appellant for surrender of his lands at D.C.Palli in Nellore District instead of lands at Sathaluru village in Guntur district.” It is further submitted that pursuant to the orders passed by the Primary Tribunal earlier, only lands in Thanamachintala village of Prakasam District to an extent of Acs.12.21 cents were taken possession but the lands at Sathaluru village and D.C.Palli are still in possession of the petitioners. Further, when the appellate Tribunal entertained the appeal and had granted stay of all further proceedings on 05-02-1991 and it was pending till the disposal of the appeal. After disposal of the appeal, the petitioners did not receive any notice from the Primary Tribunal conducting fresh enquiry to consider the proposal for surrender of alternative lands and the matter is lying like without any progress and still the petitioners are continuing in possession and enjoyment of the lands at Sathaluru village and D.C.Palli. The petitioners have raised Paddy crop in the lands at Sathaluru village and it is ripe for harvest. It is further submission of the petitioners that when the matter is not disposed of, they made a representation dated 16-11-2001 to the 1st respondent requesting him to conduct an enquiry as per the direction of the appellate Tribunal, feasibility of surrender of alternative lands and the same is also pending. While the things stood thus, the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer highhandedly preventing the petitioners from harvesting the paddy crop. Further, the 3rd respondent sent his men on 26-12-2001 and threatened the agricultural coolies not to cut the crop and if they do so, all of them will be arrested. Therefore, the 3rd respondent has no manner of right to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land of the petitioners at Sathaluru village, particularly when the Primary Tribunal has not decided the matter, in one way or the other, in pursuance of the directions given by the appellate Tribunal. In view of the above, the action of the 1st respondent in not disposing of the C.C.No.1642/ATK/75, in pursuance of the directions given by the appellate Tribunal, is illegal, improper, highhanded and further the interference of the 3rd respondent with the possession of the land when the matter is pending with the 1st respondent is also illegal, intentional, hence, the present writ petition. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner also filed WPMP.No.282 of 2002 seeking direction to the 3rd respondent not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the lands at Sathaluru village of Nadendla Mandal, Guntur district to an extent of Acs.11.57½ cents in Survey Nos.648B, 701, 702 A & B, 703, 704, 705 and 713-1, pending disposal of the writ petition. This Court by order dated 03-01-2002 while issuing Rule nisi, passed interim directions as prayed for in WPMP.No.282 of 2002. The respondents, denying the averments made by the petitioners, have filed no counter affidavit. The main grievance of the petitioners is that there was a direction by the appellate Tribunal remitting the matter to the Primary Tribunal to consider the feasibility of the alternative proposals made by the petitioners for surrender of lands in C.C.No.1642/ATK/75. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners have made representation dated 16-11-2001 to the 1st respondent requesting him to conduct an enquiry, which is pending. Without conducting enquiry and without disposing of the C.C.No.1642/ATK/75, the 3rd respondent is interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the lands at Sathaluru village. If that is so, the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction: Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the 1st respondent is directed to dispose of the C.C.No.1642/ATK/75, pursuant to the order dated 03-08-1998 passed in L.R.A. No.4 of 1991, in accordance with law, if not already disposed of, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, status quo, as on today, shall be maintained. Accordingly, with the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 24-04-2009 LSK