ASSIGNED LANDS CASES
when notice was not served - delay of 20 years is immaterial = No notice was served on the petitioner while cancelling his possession certificate under A.P. Telegana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act - Appeal after 20 years after coming to knowledge - joint collector dismissed - is in valid = BHEEMAPPA, VS THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & 5 OTHERS = published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=2752&year=2013
On the ground of violation of the conditions of assignment both the petitioners and their vendor were issued notices and, subsequently, the assignment granted in favour of the petitioners’ vendor was cancelled. =I have no reason to doubt that till an order is passed by the appellate authority on the petitioners application for stay, and the said order is communicated to them, no action would be taken to cut the trees in question. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not be construed as permitting the petitioners to remain in possession of the assigned lands.
whether the petitioner and his family members had the extents of lands at the time of the purchase of the property by the petitioner which disentitle him to claim that he was a landless poor person at the time of the purchase of the assigned lands. Respondent No.1 shall pass an order afresh, after giving the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6 a reasonable opportunity of hearing and after a thorough inspection of the records. petitioner purchased different extents of lands admeasuring Ac.12.08 cents in various survey numbers of Kannepalli Village, Bramhasamudram Mandal, Ananthapur District under a registered sale deed dated 02.08.1969 for a consideration of Rs.1,000/- from respondent Nos.4 to 6. Almost two decades later, respondent Nos.4 to 6 approached respondent No.3 to resume the lands and restore the same to them on the ground that the alienation made by them in favour of the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, 'the Act'). On the basis of the said application, respondent No.3 initiated proceedings and after enquiry he resumed the lands by holding that the alienation made in favour of the petitioner was in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Respondent No.3 also restored different extents of lands to respondent Nos.4 to 6. This order was assailed by the petitioner in an appeal filed before respondent No.2. The said appeal was dismissed by his order dated 31.07.1999 and the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order also met the same fate with its dismissal by respondent No.1 by his order dated 31.05.2001. These orders are questioned in this writ petition.
the 2nd respondent is expected to conduct the necessary enquiry as contemplated under Sections 3 and 4 of Act 9 of 1977 following the procedure prescribed in the Rules. However, strangely, the 2nd respondent had issued the impugned notice for cancellation of the patta, which is beyond the scope of Act 9 of 1977.
The provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, "the Act") prohibit the transfer of assigned lands. The term 'assigned land' is defined by Section 2(1) of the Act to the effect that the lands assigned by the Government to the landless poor persons under the rules for the time being in force subject to the condition of non-alienation and includes lands allotted or transferred to landless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings. In order to attract the bar of registration, the land must be an assigned land within the above mentioned definition. Unless the patta under which the assignment is made contains a condition of non-alienability, such land cannot be treated as assigned land within the provisions of the Act. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that the assignment made in favour of Neeruganti Yerranna prior to 1942 contained any condition of non-alienation. The fact that several registered transactions were allowed to take place raises a presumption in favour of absence of such non-alienability. For the first time, the Government by G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18-6-1954, in respect of Andhra Area, introduced the condition of non-alienability of assigned lands and the assignments made thereafter invariably contained such a condition. Inasmuch as the land was admittedly assigned prior to the year 1942 and in the absence of any record to show that such assignment contained the condition of non-alienability, it is not permissible for the respondents to presume the existence of such a condition and refuse registration of the land
mere entry in R.S.R. will not constitute proof of title and in the absence of any other revenue record showing the land as Government land, it cannot be said that there is a dispute regarding title
The petitioners have prayed that directions be issued to the respondents to consider their representations, dated 10.02.2010, 23.04.2010, 15.07.2010 and 29.11.2010 and consider their case in the light of amended provisions of the A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977.
In a case of assigned land, unless and until the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 are invoked and the patta granted earlier is cancelled, the question of passing orders which are impugned herein, does not arise.
petitioners were issued D-Form pattas dated 6.12.1997 by the 4th respondent herein in respect of various bits of land situated in Sy.No.33 of Gaitula Chowdavaram, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Condition No.1 of the D-Form patta states that the lands assigned shall be heritable but not alienable. Under condition No.2, the lands assigned are required to be brought under direct cultivation within shallthree years from the date of the order of assignment. Condition No.3 states that cultivation be done by the assignee or members of his family or with hired labour under the supervision of himself or the members of his family. Condition No.16 states that the assignment is liableThe for cancellation if it is found that it is grossly inequitable or was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to misrepresentation or fraud or in excess of the limit of the authority delegated to the assigning officer or if there was any irregularity in the procedure.
Under the A.P. Board Standing Order 12 (3)(iii), the Tahsildar and the Deputy Tahsildar in independent charge and who are the assigning authorities shall be the authorities competent to order resumption in case of breach of the conditions of grant. Admittedly, respondent No.1 does not satisfy the description of either Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar. Therefore, he has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. It is for the competent authority, namely, the Mandal Revenue Officer, (presently Tahsildar) to initiate appropriate action in the event either the petitioner violated the condition of the assignment or that the construction to be raised on the assigned land will affect the safety of the police department or both.
1-10 of 28