Lands Classified as "Punta Poramboke" Cannot Be Allotted as House Sites, Court Holds

A bench of Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, J., heard a Letters Patent appeal under Clause 15 challenging a Single Judge's order in W.P.No.7483 of 2004 concerning the allotment of house-site pattas over land shown in revenue records as "punta poramboke". The appeal was preferred by two appellants who had been respondents in the writ petition and who sought to impugn the Single Judge's finding that their allotments were vitiated by the land's classification.

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's conclusion to the limited extent that lands classified as "punta poramboke" could not have been assigned as house sites, and dismissed the writ appeal. The Court expressly refrained from adjudicating the genuineness of the pattas themselves, holding that it was "wholly unnecessary" to go into that issue because the land classification precluded any lawful allotment. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "it is wholly unnecessary for us to go into the genuineness or otherwise of the pattas granted to the appellants, since it is not in dispute that the subject land, which is classified as 'punta poramboke', could not have been allotted as house sites in the first place." The bench also noted factual findings in the Sub-Collector's report that "the pattas, said to have been issued to the appellants, were not correct" while the signature of the then Tahsildar "tallied with his signatures in the adangal".

Background

The dispute arose when two appellants (respondents 6 and 7 in the writ petition) and eleven other persons claimed to have been allotted house sites by the Tahsildar. The appellants obtained permission for construction from the Kanuru Gram Panchayat, while the eleven other claimants were refused permission and filed W.P.No.15300 of 2008. By the common order dated 25.04.2014, W.P.No.7483 of 2004 was disposed of and W.P.No.15300 of 2008 was dismissed; the latter order attained finality as those petitioners did not appeal.

During the pendency of W.P.No.7483 of 2004, the Single Judge had called for a report from the Sub-Collector into the genuineness of the assignment pattas. The Tahsildar's report, produced after enquiry, recorded that an extent of Ac.0.29 cents in R.S.No.249/1A was classified as "punta poramboke" and was set apart for a road; the original file relating to the issue of house-site pattas was not available in the office; the pattas "were not correct"; there was no record of a change of classification of the land from "punta poramboke" to "village site"; however, the signature of the then Tahsildar (Sri P. Harinarayana) tallied with signatures in the adangal.

Before this Court, counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants were landless poor and had been allotted sites by the Tahsildar, and that the matching signature established the pattas' genuineness; they argued they could not be faulted for misplacement of official records. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue and counsel for the writ petitioners relied on the statutory and administrative procedure for assignment under Paragraph 21 of the Board Standing Orders, which prescribes several mandatory entries and steps for allotment. The Court held that, regardless of any procedural irregularity or the pattas' genuineness, the fundamental legal bar was the classification of the land. The Single Judge's order was affirmed to the extent that assignment on land classed as "punta poramboke" was impermissible. The appeal was dismissed. The Court declined to grant the appellants any alternate relief in the present proceedings but clarified that the appellants remained free to request alternative house sites from the Government, and the Government could consider such requests "in accordance with law". Miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed and there was no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: W.P.No.7483 of 2004 (Letters Patent Appeal against order dated 25.04.2014) Case Title: Letters Patent Appeal against order in W.P.No.7483 of 2004 Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate (for the appellants) For the Respondent(s): Learned Government Pleader for Revenue; Sri O. Manohar Reddy, Advocate (for the respondents-writ petitioners)