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

posted 22 Nov 2013, 23:00 by murali mohan Mandagaddi

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 =

he filed an appeal before Joint Collector under Section 90(1) of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act 1950, aggrieved by orders of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet dated 03.06.1980 by which previous ownership certificate issued in favour of the petitioner for land of     Ac.2-27 gts in S.No.950 of Hasnabad village, Kodangal Mandal was illegally cancelled without notice to the petitioner and behind the back of the petitioner.  If the impugned order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer without notice to the petitioner, any amount of delay, may be of twenty years, has got to be condoned, since the impugned order is per se illegal.  Therefore, the Joint Collector should have made scrutiny of file No. C/2459/1980 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet after getting the said file, in order to find out whether the previous order dated 03.06.1980 was passed without notice to the petitioner.  Without doing the said exercise, the Joint Collector should not have dismissed the appeal on the ground of there being delay of twenty years in filing the same.

CRP 2752 / 2013
CRPSR 23755 / 2012
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
BHEEMAPPA,  VSTHE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & 5 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : ASHOK KUMARRESP.ADV. : SRINIVASA REDDY
SUBJECT: TENANCY REVISIONDISTRICT:  MAHABUBNAGAR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

Civil Revision Petition No.2752 of 2013

ORDER:

This revision petition is sought to be filed against order of Joint Collector, Mahboobnagar dismissing the appeal filed by the revision petitioner on the ground of delay of twenty years.  The Joint Collector further observed that no substantial reasons were urged for condoning the said delay.

It is contented by the revision petitioner’s counsel that the order passed by the Joint Collector is without reason and superficial.  It is the petitioner’s contention that he filed an appeal before Joint Collector under Section 90(1) of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act 1950, aggrieved by orders of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet dated 03.06.1980 by which previous ownership certificate issued in favour of the petitioner for land of     Ac.2-27 gts in S.No.950 of Hasnabad village, Kodangal Mandal was illegally cancelled without notice to the petitioner and behind the back of the petitioner.  If the impugned order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer without notice to the petitioner, any amount of delay, may be of twenty years, has got to be condoned, since the impugned order is per se illegal.  Therefore, the Joint Collector should have made scrutiny of file No. C/2459/1980 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet after getting the said file, in order to find out whether the previous order dated 03.06.1980 was passed without notice to the petitioner.  Without doing the said exercise, the Joint Collector should not have dismissed the appeal on the ground of there being delay of twenty years in filing the same.

In the result, the revision petition is allowed setting aside order dated 09.12.2011 passed by the Joint Collector, Mahboobnagar and remitting back the matter to the file of the Joint Collector, Mahboobnagar for disposal of the same according to law after doing the exercise indicated in this order.

 

___________________

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

24th July,2013.

Dv

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.

posted 13 Dec 2011, 16:47 by murali mohan Mandagaddi   [ updated 13 Dec 2011, 16:48 ]

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

 

WRIT PETITION No.28949 OF 2011

ORDER:

 

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. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an appeal along with an application seeking stay. On the ground that the stay application has not yet been disposed of, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioners claim that there is a mango orchard over the land and if, in interregnum, the respondents were to take punitive action, it would result in irreparable loss and damage to them.

 

When the matter was listed on 29.10.2011, Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) sought time to obtain instructions. Today the Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the notices have been served, and the stay petition is listed for hearing before the third respondent on 05.11.2011.

 

Ends of justice would be met if the third respondent is directed to pass orders on the stay petition on 05.11.2011 itself, and communicate the same to the petitioners forthwith. There shall be an order accordingly. 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.

 

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

_____________________________

RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J

November 02, 2011

 

Note: Issue C.C. in two days.

B/O.MD


 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WRIT PETITION No.28949 OF 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

November 02, 2011

MD

 

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.

posted 9 Jun 2011, 06:43 by murali mohan Mandagaddi

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY           
Writ Petition No.12545 of 2001

09-09-2008 

Golla Narasappa 

The Joint Collector
Ananthapur, Ananthapur District,
& others.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Ghanta Rama Rao 

Counsel for Respondents 1-3: AGP for Revenue (Assignments).  
Counsel for respondents 4-6: Sri O. Manohar Reddy 

:ORDER:  

        This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated
31.05.2001 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he confirmed orders dated  
18.09.1998 and 03.07.1999 passed by respondent Nos.3 and 2 respectively. 

        Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) for respondent Nos.1 to 
3, Sri O.Manohar Reddy for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and perused the record.

        The 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.

        In the order passed by respondent No.3, he mentioned that the petitioner
possessed a total extent of Ac.23.69 cents in terms of dry land as on the date
of the purchase of the said lands and he was also assigned an extent of Ac.2.50
cents in Sy.No.316-2 on 24.01.1991.  He also held that consideration of
Rs.1,000/- for Ac.12.08 cents was not valuable.  Respondent No.3 also held that
there were no bona fides on the part of the petitioner in purchasing the land as
every one in the village is expected to know whether the land is assigned land
or not.  On these premises, he held that the petitioner was not entitled to the
benefit of Section 3(5) of the Act and accordingly, he directed resumption and
restoration of the lands to respondent Nos.4 to 6.  In arriving at the finding
that the petitioner had Ac.23.69 cents of dry land at the time of his purchase,
respondent No.3 evidently relied on report dated 15.09.1998 of the Mandal
Revenue Inspector as could be seen from reference No.5 of his order.  Respondent
No.3 has not mentioned in his order whether all these lands stood in the name of
the petitioner alone or any of his other family members.

        Respondent No.2 in his order agreed with the reasons given by respondent
No.3 while disposing of the appeal.  He stated that a perusal of the records
showed that at the time of the petitioner's purchase, he had Ac.23.69 cents
apart from having pawn broking and sheep rearing business.  In the grounds of
revision filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1, apart from pleading
that he purchased the land for valuable consideration in good faith, the
petitioner specifically pleaded that respondent No.3 has not properly arrived at
the extent of the land held by him in holding that he owned Ac.23.69 cents
without any proof.  Respondent No.2 also pleaded that the petitioner was a
member of a joint family with himself, his brother and his father as members and
respondent No.3 has not properly calculated the individual holdings.  He further
stated that ROR patta passbook issued to the petitioner shows that he had only
Ac.1.73 cents, Ac.1.99 cents and Ac.0.41 cents in Sy.Nos.257-4D, 298-2D and 256-  
1B respectively and that the finding of respondent No.3 that he owned Ac.23.00
is a fanciful imagination, which did not bear any truth.  The petitioner's plea
was that if a proper computation of individual holdings from out of the joint
family holding is made, he shall be treated as a landless poor person.

        Section 3(1) of the Act prohibits transfer of assigned land either before
or after commencement of the Act and the said provision declared such transfer
as null and void.  However, Section 3(5) carved out an exception under which
transfer made in favour of landless poor person in good faith and for valuable
consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the
commencement of the Act is saved.  

        Section 2(3) defined "landless poor person" as a person, who owns land of
an extent of not more than 1.011715 hectares (Ac.2.50 cents) of wet land or
2.023430 hectares (Ac.5.00) of dry land or such other extent of land as has been
or may be specified by the Government in this behalf from time to time, and who
has no other means of livelihood.

        Respondent No.1, while affirming the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3,
solely relied on the admission of the petitioner contained in para 3 of his
grounds of revision that he owned Ac.4.13 cents of land at the time of purchase
and therefore the said fact itself speaks that he possessed landed property and
that he is not entitled for the benefit under Section 3(5) of the Act.

        In my considered view, respondent No.1 made a perfunctory approach.  As 
noted above, it is the specific plea of the petitioner that the conclusion
arrived at by respondent No.3 that he owned an extent of Ac.23.69 cents at the
time of purchase of the assigned land was his imagination and that he did not
own such a land at all.  He specifically pleaded that he was owning only Ac.4.13
cents of land apart from pleading that his joint family consisted of his father,
himself and his brother.

        In Boddeda Sambamurty vs. The Tahsildar, Anakapalli1 a Division bench of
this Court held that while considering the plea of landless poor person under
Section 3(5) of the Act, shares of members of a joint Hindu family have to be
considered on the basis of notional partition.  Respondent No.1 ought to have
considered the plea of the petitioner that he was only one of the three members
of the joint family and that on a notional partition he would fall within the
definition of "landless poor person".

        No doubt, as contended by Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the burden is on the 
person, who claims that he falls within the exception of Section 3(5) of the
Act, but at the same time, the respondents cannot abdicate their responsibility
in arriving at the proper conclusion with reference to the facts on record.  The
question whether at the time of purchase of the assigned lands the petitioner
and his family members were owning the landed property in excess of limits
prescribed under the provisions of the Act or not should after all have been
adjudicated with reference to the available record.

        Though on the basis of the report of Mandal Revenue Inspector, respondent
No.3 arrived at the finding that the petitioner's family own Ac.23.69 cents of
the land, the petitioner had consistently questioned the said finding before
respondent Nos.2 and 1 in the appeal and revision respectively.  Unfortunately,
neither of the two respondents have gone through the record and given specific
findings in this regard.  It is the obligation of respondent Nos.1 and 2, who
act as quasi-judicial bodies, to adjudicate the dispute on the basis of the
facts available on record and not on surmises or the reports submitted by the
subordinate officers.  In this view of the matter, I am of the view that
respondent No.1 has not decided the revision in the manner in which he ought to
have decided.

        As regards the finding of respondent No.3, that the petitioner was not a
bona fide purchaser, the said finding is rendered on a surmise that everybody in
the village right from the shepherd to the big landlord is expected to know
which are the assigned lands and which are not.  There can be no such
presumption unless there is material to show that the petitioner was aware of
the fact that the lands are assigned lands.

        With regard to the finding of respondent No.3 that the consideration of
Rs.1,000/- for Ac.12.08 cents was not valuable, he has arrived at this finding
by comparing the transaction with other transactions.  One such transaction
related to Ac.9.22 cents, which was purchased for Rs.1,000/- on 13.07.1967.
Another transaction related to Ac.8.28 cents, which was purchased for Rs.1,000/-
on 02.02.1968.  In these two transactions, the consideration per acre worked out
to Rs.108/- and Rs.128/- respectively.  A comparison of these sale transactions
shows that the average value of the property per acre in the vicinity where the
lands in dispute are situated is around Rs.100/- per acre.  That being so,
consideration of Rs.78/- per acre is not so low as to drive respondent No.3 to
come to the conclusion that consideration was not valuable.  The finding of
respondent No.3 in this regard is therefore not sustainable.

        For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed.  The order
of respondent No.1 is quashed and the matter is remitted to respondent No.1 for
fresh consideration with regard to the question 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.  He shall complete this exercise within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

        As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition as indicated above,
WPMP.No.15575 of 2001 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of
as infructuous.

?1 1998 (2) ALT 304 
.

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.

posted 9 Jun 2011, 06:40 by murali mohan Mandagaddi

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI      
Writ Petition No. 17416 of 2010

08-10-2010 

B.Mani, Chittoor District.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh,  
Chittoor District and another.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Mr. S.V.Muni Reddy         

Counsel for the Respondents1 and 2 : Govt. Pleader for Assignment
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr. V.Jagapathi

:ORDER:  

        The petitioner herein claims to be landless poor person.  It is stated
that his father by name Bangaraiah @ Bangarugan was assigned Ac.1.00 cents of  
land situated in Sy.No.1451/5 and Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.1441/10 totaling
Ac.1.25 cents in Vinobhanagar Village, Satyavedu Taluk, Nagulapuram Mandal vide 
DKT patta No.37/4/1383 dated 22.07.1972.  It is stated that the petitioner's
father made the said land fit for cultivation and continued in possession till
his death and thereafter the petitioner continued in possession and enjoyment of
the same.  Alleging that the 3rd respondent herein had encroached upon the land
in question highhandedly and obtained pattadar pass book and title deed in her
favour, the petitioner made a complaint dated 03.12.2008 before the 2nd
respondent herein requesting for restoration of the land.  As the 2nd respondent
failed to take any action, the petitioner made a detailed representation dated
20.03.2010 before the District Collector, Chittoor.  Having considered the same,
the 1st respondent by order dated 07.05.2010 directed the 2nd respondent to take
action as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition
of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short the Act 9 of 1977).  Thereafter, the 2nd
respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why
the D-form patta granted to him should not be cancelled.  Aggrieved by the same,
the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the impugned show
cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent was without jurisdiction apart from
being contrary to the 1st respondent's order dated 07.05.2010.
        The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the land in
question was sold by the petitioner's father to the husband of the 3rd
respondent under sale deed dated 11.03.1976.  It is stated that the 3rd
respondent's husband was put in possession and since then he continued in
possession and enjoyment of the same.  In the year 1981, when the petitioner's
father and mother started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the
said land, the 3rd respondent's husband filed O.S.No.16 of 1981 on the file of
the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Satyavedu, Chittoor District for permanent
injunction to which the petitioner was also impleaded as defendant No.3.  After
the receipt of summons, the petitioner and his parents had compromised the
matter out of Court and a compromise memo duly signed by them was filed in the
suit.  Basing on the said compromise memo, O.S.No.16 of 1981 was decreed   
granting permanent injunction against the defendants.  The said judgment and
decree dated 19.03.1982 in O.S.No.16 of 1981 became final.  It is also stated
that the 2nd respondent after conducting necessary enquiry granted pattadar pass
book and title deeds in favour of the 3rd respondent vide patta No.667 and Katha
No.254670 duly counter signed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor.
Again in the year 2009, the petitioner started interfering with the possession
and enjoyment of the lands in question and therefore, the 3rd respondent was
constrained to file O.S.NO.91 of 2009 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge,
Satyavedu, Chittoor District for permanent injunction.  The said suit is pending
and by order dated 29.10.2009 in I.A.No.273 of 2009, status quo was directed to
be maintained.  Suppressing all the said facts, the writ petitioner made a
representation before the 1st respondent on 20.03.2010 claiming that D.K. patta
granted to his father was subsisting.  As a matter of fact, the petitioner's
father had alienated the assigned land long back in the year 1976 much prior to
the enactment of Act 9 of 1977 and therefore, the 3rd respondent is entitled to
the benefit of Section 3 (5) of Act 9 of 1977 as the 3rd respondent's husband
was a landless poor person and had purchased the assigned lands for valid
consideration in good faith.  Thus, it is contended that the writ petition is
misconceived and it is filed as a counter blast to the civil suit filed by the
3rd respondent in which an interim order of status quo is in operation.
        I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
material available on record.
        A perusal of the 1st respondent's order dated 07.05.2010 shows that the
writ petitioner had made a representation for restoration of the land in
question stating that the same was assigned in favour of his father in the year
1972 and that the 3rd respondent had illegally encroached upon the same.  Having
made the necessary enquiry, it was found by the 1st respondent that though the
land in question was assigned to the petitioner's father on 22.07.1972, the same
was alienated in favour of the 3rd respondent's husband and one Kilashaiah by
way of agreement of sale and that the purchasers are in possession and enjoyment
of the same for the past 30 years.  It was also found that the petitioner had
never cultivated the land and the land was not in his possession.   Accordingly,
the 1st respondent had directed the 2nd respondent to take action as per the
provisions of the Act 9 of 1977.
        The Act 9 of 1977 has been enacted to prohibit transfers of lands assigned
to landless poor persons.  The said Act came into force on 22.01.1977.  Section
3(1) of the Act provides that any land assigned by the Government to landless
poor person either before or after commencement of Act shall not be transferred
and no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring
the land by such transfer.  Sub-section (3) made it clear that any transfer or
acquisition in contravention of the above said prohibition shall be deemed to be
null and void.  However, as per sub-section (5) of Section 3, the prohibition
shall not apply to assigned land which was purchased by a landless poor person
in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee prior to
the commencement of the said Act and which is in possession of such person on 
the date of such commencement.    The consequences of transfer in contravention
of the prohibition under Section 3 of the Act are provided under Section 4,
which reads as under:
4. Consequences of breach provisions of Section 3:-
(1)      If in any case, the District Collector or any other officer not below
the rank of a (Mandal Revenue Officer) authorised by him in this behalf, is
satisfied that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section3, have been
contravened in respect of any assigned land he may, by order-
(a)     take possession of the assigned land, after evicting the person in
possession in such manner as may be prescribed; and  
(b)       restore the assigned land to the original assignee or his legal heir,
or where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such assignee
or legal heir, resume the assigned land to Government for assignment to landless
poor persons in accordance with the rules for the time being in force;
Provided that the assigned land shall not be so restored to the original
assignee or his legal heir more than once, and in case the original assignee or
his legal heir transfers the assigned land again after such restoration.  It
shall e resumed to the Government for assignment to any other landless poor
person.

        As could be seen, the District Collector or any other Officer not below
the rank of Mandal Revenue Officer authorised by him is competent to take
possession of the assigned land after evicting the person in possession and
restore the assigned land to the original assignee or his legal heir,where it is
reasonably practicable to restore the land to such assignee or his legal heir.
Where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such assignee or
legal heir, the land should be resumed to the Government for assignment to
landless poor persons.
It is apparent that the power conferred under Section 4 for resumption of the
assigned land is entirely different from the cancellation of the
assignment/patta. In G.Munilakshmamma v. the District Collector, Chittoor
District1 it was held that the power to cancel the power under paragraph 18 of
the Board Standing Order 15 has to be exercised by the District Collector on the
ground of suppression of material facts and misrepresentation of facts.  It is
also held that the Mandal Revenue Officer has no power to cancel the patta for
breach of conditions of the D-form patta.
        Admittedly, the enquiry ordered by the 1st respondent in the proceedings
dated 07.05.2010 is an enquiry under the provisions of Act 9 of 1977.   In the
circumstances, 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.
Thus, it is clear that the impugned notice is not in terms of the directions
issued by the 1st  respondent dated 07.05.2010 and therefore, the same is hereby
set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd
respondent to make an enquiry under the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 as directed
by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 07.05.2010.   Since it is admitted
by the petitioner that he is not in possession and enjoyment of the land in
question as on today and moreover the proceedings of the 1st respondent shows 
that the respondents 3 and 4 are in possession of the land in question, their
possession should not be disturbed except in accordance with law.
Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.  No costs.

?1 1999 (1) ALT 617 
.

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

posted 9 Jun 2011, 06:26 by murali mohan Mandagaddi

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY           
W.P.No.17865 of 2010  

29-11-2010 

P.V. Rajendra Kumar s/o.P.C. Narappa and another  

Government of Andhra Pradesh,  
represented by its Secretary,
Revenue Department,  
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad
and others

Counsel for petitioners :  Sri P.R. Prasad

Counsel for respondents :  Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

:ORDER:  

        This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of
respondent No.5 in refusing to receive and register the documents proposed to be
presented by the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary.
        The petitioners claim that they are the owners of Ac.3-93 cents covered by
Sy.No.252/1 of Bukkaraya Samudram Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District. It is
their pleaded case that the said land is part of Ac.10-75cents which was
alienated by one Neeruganti Yerranna in favour of Smt.Rukmini Tayaramma under 
registered sale deed dated 25-7-1942; that her son Ramachandra Rao succeeded to  
the said property and on his death the same devolved upon one Kranthi Swaroop
Kumar; that they have purchased the extent of Ac.3-93 cents from out of the said
land from the last reputed owner and the property was mutated in their name and
pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued; that when the petitioners
proposed to sell the said land and sought to present the sale deeds, respondent
No.5 insisted on no objection certificate from respondent No.4 and he refused to
receive the documents on the ground of the petitioners' failure to produce such
no objection certificate.
        In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, it is inter alia stated
that the land in question was classified as 'G.D.' and the same was assigned to
one Neeruganti Yerranna alias Kondappa prior to 1942.  The subsequent sale
transactions referred to by the petitioners have been admitted by the
respondents.  It is further averred that though respondent No.4 has submitted
proposals to the District Collector for grant of no objection certificate, the
Joint Collector has taken an objection stating that it is not reported whether
the land was assigned on condition of non-alienability and whether any condition
was imposed at the time of assignment and that accordingly the Joint Collector
has rejected the proposals and directed to produce evidence of assignment of
land prior to 1942.
        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.
        For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed.  Respondent
No.5 is directed to receive the documents that may be presented by the
petitioner for registration.  He shall register the documents subject to the
petitioner complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
.

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

posted 9 Jun 2011, 06:22 by murali mohan Mandagaddi

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY           
W.P.No.22450 of 2010  

09-12-2010 

Madiga Papanna s/o.late Gounda Jammanna    

State of Andhra Pradesh,
represented by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad  
and others

Counsel for petitioner: Sri Vedula Srinivas

Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 

:ORDER:  

        This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of
respondent Nos.2 and 3 in including land in Sy.No.174 of Dinne Devarapadu
village, Kurnool Mandal and District, in the list of prohibited lands under the
provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977 and
consequently the action of respondent No.4 in not registering the documents
sought to be presented by the petitioner for registration as illegal and
arbitrary.
        I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 
        The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of land admeasuring
Ac.1-78 cents in Sy.No.174 of the above mentioned village.  In support of his
claim that he is the owner of the property, the petitioner has filed pattadar
pass book and title deeds apart from the extract of record of holding
purportedly maintained under B.S.O.No.31.  When the petitioner sought to present
a sale deed for registration in respect of the above mentioned land, the same
was not entertained on the ground that in the list of prohibited lands
communicated by respondent Nos.2 and 3 to respondent No.4, the entire land of
Ac.10-72 cents in Sy.No.174 was shown as assigned land.  
        A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.3 wherein it is inter alia
admitted that pattadar pass book and title deed were issued in favour of the
petitioner.  It is further averred that the petitioner has obtained the same by
misleading the revenue authorities.  Respondent No.3 has maintained that the
land in Sy.No.174 is classified as 'Government AW' in Re-settlement Register
(R.S.R.) of 1908 and the pattadar column was kept blank with dots.  Except
stating that the R.S.R. has described the land as 'Government AW', no other
revenue record has been referred to in the counter affidavit nor has been
produced by the respondents at the time of hearing.
        On many occasions, this Court had considered the effect of entry in the
R.S.R.  In a recent Judgment, which was rendered on the basis of the previous
Judgments, in W.P.No.6016/2010, dated 2-7-2010, this Court has held as under :
"In the present case, except for stating that entries in the Village Account
R.S.R. of Doddipalli Village indicate the lands in Survey No.1969/2, 1972,
1969/1B and 1971 as Government lands, there is no other basis for the revenue
authorities to stake a claim over the lands.  To the contrary, the evidence on
record, being registered transactions dating back to 1942, 1938, 1959 and 1972,
as the case may be, clearly negates the unilateral claim of the revenue
authorities that this land is Government land.  It is of course for the
Government to assert and prove its title if it chooses to do so, in a properly
constituted proceeding before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Without doing so, it is not open to the revenue authorities or the registration
authorities to deny persons claiming rights over such land on the basis of mere
revenue entries.  The action of the respondents in treating the subject land as
Government land and the action of the registration authorities in refusing to
receive and register documents in respect of this land is therefore
unsustainable in law."

        The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that since
there is a dispute regarding title, the petitioner will have to get his title
declared by approaching the competent civil court.
        I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention.  In view of the settled
legal position that 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.  At any rate, mere
registration of a conveyance deed does not create title in the transferee.  If
the Government feels that the property belongs to it, it can always avail
appropriate remedy to assert its title and claim the property.  Mere
registration of the sale deed would not come in the way of the Government in
asserting its right and availing appropriate remedy.
        For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed.  Respondent
No.4 is directed to entertain the sale deed that may be presented by the
petitioner and register the same in accordance with the provisions of the
Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
.

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.

posted 9 Jun 2011, 05:37 by murali mohan Mandagaddi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH

AT HYDERABAD

 

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

 

Present

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

 

WRIT PETITION No.3526 of 2011

 

Between:

 

Dasari Srinivasulu & 5 others   

.. Petitioners

 

AND

 

The District Collector,

Sri Potti Sriramulu,

Nellore District & 7 others

.. Respondents

 

 

 

The Court made the following:

 

 

 


HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

 

WRIT PETITION No.3526 of 2011

 

ORDER:

 

          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.

 

          2.       After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the aforementioned representations in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.  There shall be no order as to costs.

 

 

_______________________

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J

Date: 16th March, 2011

 

KL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WRIT PETITION No.3526 of 2011

 

 

 

Date: 16th March, 2011

 

KL

 

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.

posted 1 Jun 2011, 06:49 by murali mohan Mandagaddi

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH 
AT HYDERABAD

 

 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

 

WRIT PETITION NO:3146 OF 2005

 

DATED:16.12.2010

 

Between:

 Munagala Pitchi Reddy

.....PETITIONER

AND

 

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapuram Mandal, Nellore District.

 

                                                                                                     

                                                                 .....RESPONDENT

 

This Court made the following :


 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

 

WRIT PETITION NO:3146 OF 2005

 

 

ORDER:

 

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the resumption orders in Rc.B.293/2004, dated 15.2.2005 issued by the respondent, without waiting for 15 days, the time which was granted to the petitioner to submit explanation from the date of receipt of Form-I notice, as arbitrary and illegal.

According to the petitioner, he had purchased Ac.1.32 cents of land under two registered sale deeds dated 11.9.2003 and 16.12.2003 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.  While that being so, on 5.2.2005, the petitioner was served with Form I notice dated 25.1.2004, under which he was asked to explain as to why the land purchased and occupied by him should not been resumed by the Government since it is an assigned land.  The petitioner submitted an explanation on 15.2.2005.  But the order impugned herein has been passed on 15.2.2005 itself.

It is very interesting to note that there are so many blanks left over in the impugned order and the Mandal Revenue Officer signed the same and it was served on the petitioner.  Apart from this, though it is stated that the land in question was assigned in favour of one Bandi Police, S/o Tirupalu and Bandi Peda Kondaiah, S/o Tirupalu, residents of Nekunampeta village, Kondapuram Mandal, Nellore District and patta was granted in their favour, but patta number and date were not mentioned in the impugned order. 

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.  Even at the time of admission of the writ petition on 22.2.2005, this Court felt that prima facie, the order of the respondent dated 15.2.2005 is lacunic and perverse.  Nothing more can be said even at this stage.  Unless and until patta granted in favour of Bandi Police and Bandi Peda Kondaiah is cancelled, question of resumption orders does not arise.  Even the reference made in the order dated 15.2.2005 does not reflect such a course of action taken by the respondent by serving notice on the said persons and cancelling the patta after hearing them. But directly, notice was served on the petitioner and before explanation that could be submitted by the petitioner, final orders have been passed, without waiting for 15 days time after service of notice. 

For all the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the order impugned herein is arbitrary and illegal and in gross violation of principles of natural justice.  Therefore, the impugned order dated 15.2.2005 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in Rc.B.293/2004 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.  No order as to costs.

 

                                                                    ______________________

                                                                     Justice C.V. Ramulu

Dated:16.12.2010

Nn.      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WRIT PETITION NO:3146 OF 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16.12.2010

 

 

 

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.

posted 21 May 2011, 02:48 by murali mohan Mandagaddi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH 
AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)


WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

 

PRESENT

 

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO : 21432 of 2000

 

Between:

1        Molli Suraiah, S/o.Asirivadu
     R/o. G.Agraharam Village, Poosapatirega Mandal,
     Vijayanagaram District. 
2        Molli Sinkaya, S/o.Late Bahgari,
     R/o. G.Agraharam Village, Poosapatirega Mandal,
     Vijayanagaram District. 
3        Podilapu Surya Narayana, S/o.Narasimham
     R/o. G.Agraharam Village, Poosapatirega Mandal,
     Vijayanagaram District. 
4        Molli Asira Naidu, S/o.Sinkaya,
     R/o. G.Agraharam Village, Poosapatirega Mandal,
     Vijayanagaram District. 
5        Podilapu Sundar Rao, S/o.Yerraiah,
     R/o. G.Agraharam Village, Poosapatirega Mandal,
     Vijayanagaram District. 
6        Ravade Sunder Rao, S/o.Chiteyya,
     R/o. G.Agraharam Village, Poosapatirega Mandal,
     Vijayanagaram District. 
7        Molli Bangari, S/o.Sinkaya,
     R/o. G.Agraharam Village, Poosapatirega Mandal,
     Vijayanagaram District.

..... PETITIONER(S)

AND

 

1    The Collector, 
      Vijayanagaram District. Vijayanagaram.
2    The Joint Collector, 
      Vijayanagaram District. Vijayanagaram.
3    The Revenue Divisional Officer, 
      Vijayanagaram District. Vijayanagaram.
4    The Mandal Revenue Officer, 
      Poosapatirega Mandal, Poosapatirega,
      Vijayanagaram District.
5    The Revenue Inspector, 
      Poosapatirega, Vijayanagaram District.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

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 Pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a Writ declaring the order of the 4th respondent in Rc.No.321/2000, dated:19.10.2000 as without jurisdiction, illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and set-aside the same and to pass such other order or orders as this hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper as are necessary in the interests of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.V.PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT

The Court made the following :


 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR

 

WRIT PETITION NO. 21432 of 2000

 

 

ORDER:

 

        The order in RC.No.321/2000, dated 19.10.2000 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Poosapatirega Mandal, 4th respondent herein is challenged on the grounds of jurisdiction, illegality, arbitrariness and violation of the principles of natural justice.   By the said order, the 4th respondent directed resumption of the lands assigned to the petitioners.

 

        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.

 

        The petitioners claim that at the time the lands were assigned to them, the lands were covered by shrubs and also mango saplings.   It is their case that they had to pay separately towards the cost of the mango saplings.   The details of the said payment are furnished in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.   The petitioners further claim that after clearing the shrubs existing on the lands, they raised a mango tope upon the lands along with coconut trees.  

 

        It appears that a notice was issued by the 4th respondent in RC.No.321/2000 dated 29.9.2000 threatening to resume the lands on the ground that the assignees had violated condition Nos.1,2,3 and 16 of the D-Form pattas issued to them.   The petitioners were asked to show-cause within seven (7) days as to why action should not be taken in pursuance of the said notice.   It is pertinent to note that in the body of the notice, the 4th respondent admitted that the D-Form pattas were granted only two years prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice.   The petitioners submitted individual replies to the above show- cause notice on 16.10.2000 stating that they had complied with the conditions of the assignment and that they were in possession and enjoyment of the assigned land, cultivating the same to the knowledge of one and all, including the revenue authorities.   The petitioners further stated that if a personal enquiry was conducted in their presence, it would clearly establish that they were in possession and enjoyment of the assigned land.   They accordingly prayed for dropping all further proceedings in pursuance of the show-cause notice. 

 

        It is the case of the petitioners that without conducting any further enquiry into the matter, duly taking them into confidence, the 4th respondent issued the impugned proceedings in RC.No.321/2000 dated 19.10.2000 holding that the assignees had violated condition Nos.1,2,3 and 16 of the D-Form pattas and ordering resumption of the lands.

 

        The said order is assailed by the petitioners primarily on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the 4th respondent acted upon an enquiry, which is said to have been conducted by the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram District, the 2nd respondent herein, behind their back.   It is further stated that the order is without jurisdiction as the 4th respondent could take action under condition No.2 of the D-Form patta only after the lapse of three years from the date of assignment and as, admittedly, only two years had passed since the date of the assignment in favour of the petitioners, the 4th respondent was not empowered to order resumption of the assigned land on the ground of alleged violation of condition No.2.  

 

        The further contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the lands were assigned with existing mango saplings and the petitioners had to pay separately for the same.   That being so, it was not open to the 4th respondent to baldly state that the petitioners were not cultivating the lands.   The petitioners claimed that they developed the mango tope and the same was about 5 years old at the time of filing of the writ petition.   It is therefore contended on their behalf that the finding of the 4th respondent is without factual basis.   The petitioners, accordingly, prayed for a declaration that the impugned proceedings dated 19.10.2000 were without jurisdiction, illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and to set aside the same.

 

        The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition, stating that after being satisfied that the assigned lands were not being cultivated by the petitioners, the show-cause notice dated 29.9.2000 was issued by his office.   It is stated that as the explanation submitted by the petitioners was not convincing, it was not felt necessary to call upon the petitioners for a further enquiry.   It is also pointed out that that though an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners as against the order of resumption, the petitioners challenged the same in this writ petition.   It is claimed that in pursuance of the order of resumption dated 19.10.2000, the petitioners were dispossessed from the assigned lands on 22.10.2000.   It is reiterated that the petitioners committed violation of condition Nos.1,2,3 and 16 of the D-Form patta and that the order of resumption dated 19.10.2000 is lawful and valid. 

 

        The petitioners filed a reply to the above counter specifically claiming that they continued to be in possession of the assigned lands and that the statement made in the counter that they were dispossessed on 22.10.2000 was factually incorrect.   They supported this plea by filing a set of cist receipts dated 21.8.2004 evidencing payment of cist in respect of the assigned lands.    With regard to the plea of an alternative remedy being available to them, it is noticed that the petitioners had stated in their writ affidavit itself that as the appellate authority was subordinate to the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram District, the 2nd respondent herein upon whose enquiry report, the 4th respondent had passed the impugned proceedings, the appellate remedy available to them was rendered nugatory.

 

        It is an irrefutable fact that the show-cause notice dated 29.9.2000 recorded that only two years had lapsed since the date of assignment.   In the light of this admission, the violation of condition No.2 did not arise as on the date of the said notice.  Though the said notice alleged violation of conditions 1,3 and 16, no particulars or details pertaining to the alleged violation are forthcoming from the contents of the said notice.  

 

Further, in spite of the specific averment made by the petitioners, in their explanation to the show-cause notice that they were in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the assigned lands, cultivating the same to the knowledge of one and all including the revenue authorities and calling upon the 4th respondent to hold a personal enquiry in their presence to establish this fact, the 4th respondent failed to do so and on the other hand relied upon an enquiry which is said to have been conducted by the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram District, apparently behind the back of the petitioners.   It is not forthcoming either from the proceedings or from the counter affidavit as to what necessitated the higher officer to undertake such an enquiry into the matter.   The findings of the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram in the so called enquiry were never put to the petitioners nor were they given an opportunity to rebut the same.   Prima facie, this action on the part of the authorities manifests a clear and blatant violation of the rule of ‘audi alteram partem’.

 

        Significantly, the absence of particulars and details in the show-cause notice with regard to the alleged violation of conditions 1,3 and 16 of the D-Form pattas, is echoed in the impugned proceedings and the 4th respondent baldly concluded that the said conditions were violated.   The vagueness of the show-cause notice in this regard culminated in the same vagueness being reiterated in the final proceedings dated 19.10.2000.   The counter affidavit filed in the writ petition also does not throw any light on the alleged violation of the conditions 1,3 and 16 of the D-Form pattas.  The impugned proceedings are therefore found to be without application of mind in so far as the alleged violation of these conditions is concerned. 

 

        In the light of the fact that the enquiry by the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram was the foundation for the impugned proceedings passed by the 4th respondent, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there would be no point served in filing an appeal against the said proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, who is subordinate to the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram District.   In any event, the plea that an alternative remedy constitutes a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be slotted into a straitjacket formula and each case will have to be examined on its own merits.  The contention of the respondents that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioners, therefore, does not commend itself to this Court.  So far as the issue of the actual resumption of possession is concerned, the fact that the petitioners are in a position to prove their possession long after their alleged dispossession, clearly indicates that the act of their dispossession, if any, by the respondents was only on paper.  In any event, the impugned proceedings being the basis of such alleged dispossession are found to be illegal and unsustainable and accordingly, their dispossession or otherwise does not have any significance at this stage.   The impugned proceedings dated 19.10.2000 are therefore without proper application of mind in addition to being devoid of material particulars and being in complete violation of the principles of natural justice.

 

        The writ petition is accordingly allowed declaring the order of the 4th respondent in Rc.No.321/2000 dated 19.10.2000 as illegal and unsustainable and consequently setting aside the same.  There shall be no order as to costs.

          

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      _________________

                                                                         P.V. SANJAY KUMAR. J

 

22nd OCTOBER, 2008

Tsr


Copy to:

 

1    The Collector, 
      Vijayanagaram District. Vijayanagaram.


2    The Joint Collector, 
      Vijayanagaram District. Vijayanagaram.


3    The Revenue Divisional Officer, 
      Vijayanagaram District. Vijayanagaram.


4    The Mandal Revenue Officer, 
      Poosapatirega Mandal, Poosapatirega,
      Vijayanagaram District.


5    The Revenue Inspector, 
      Poosapatirega, Vijayanagaram District.

 

6.   The Government Pleader for Assignment, High Court Buildings,

       Hyderabad (OUT).

 

7.   Two C.D.Copies.

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.

posted 18 May 2011, 00:00 by murali mohan Mandagaddi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,

ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

 

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY

 

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

 

WRIT PETITION No.16070 of 2000

 

 

 

Between:

 

K. Jayasri

… Petitioner

 

 

AND

 

 

The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Bodhan, Nizamabad District,

& another.

 

… Respondents

 

 

 

 

Counsel for the petitioner     :  None

 

 

Counsel for the respondents:  AGP for Revenue (Assignments)

 

 

                                                           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This Court made the following:

 

 

 

 

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

 

WRIT PETITION No.16070 of 2000

 

ORDER:-

 

          This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 28.07.2000 of respondent No.1, whereby he cancelled the house site patta granted in favour of the petitioner.

 

          At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner.

 

          Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) and perused the record.

 

          The petitioner was granted assignment of Ac.0.03 cents admeasuring 30’ x 40’ on 30.11.1985 by the then Tahsildar, Banswada.  Respondent No.1 issued show cause notice dated 02.06.2000 in which it is stated that the assigned land is adjacent to the quarters of the police department, that the Deputy Superintendent of Police informed that allowing of a private structure adjacent to the police quarters may lead to security problems in future and that on verification of the assignment orders it was revealed that they were issued in the year 1985 and the petitioner failed to construct a house within six months as stipulated under Condition No.2 of the assigned land.  After considering the explanation filed by the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed cancelling the assignment.

 

          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. 

 

          The writ petition is, therefore, allowed.  The impugned order is set aside with liberty to the Tahsildar, Bodhan to initiate appropriate action for resumption under the A.P. Board Standing Orders.

 

          As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.20441 of 2000 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

                                                                       

____________________________

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

Date: 21.07.2008

ES

1-10 of 28