Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jonnalagadda.Saramma, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 19 October, 2020
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Writ Petition No.19048 of 2020
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-
".. to declare the action of 4th respondent in issuing notices to the petitioners, dated 30.09.2020, without having jurisdiction and further action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession of petitioners over their respective house site patta lands admeasuring 120 square yards (2 ½ cents) each, situated in Sy.Nos.262/8A, 263/2A and 264/2B of Inagallu Village, Parchur Mandal, Prakasam District, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the notices impugned in this writ petition and direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective house site patta lands referred above."
2. It is the case of petitioners that they are in possession and enjoyment of the land assigned to them by issuing DKT pattas as they are landless poor persons. Most of them are attending daily wage coolie work and they are in possession of the land covered by Sy.Nos.262/8A, 263/2A and 264/2B of Inagallu Village, Parchur Mandal, Prakasam District. The petitioners raised thatched huts and sheds and living therein. But, Tahsildar Office, Parchur Mandal, the 4th respondent herein issued notices vide R.C.No.B.DT/110/2016, dated 30.09.2020 calling upon these petitioners to submit their explanation within a week to take further action in this regard.
2
3. One of the contentions of these petitioners is that the Tahsildar/4th respondent is incompetent to issue notices for resumption of the land in view of BSO (21) of A.P. Revenue Board Standing Orders, thereby the impugned notices are illegal and requested to set aside the same.
4. During the course of hearing, Sri T.Venu Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the petition, while placing reliance on the judgment reported in P.V. Satyanarayana Murthy and others vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others1
5. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue supported the action of the 4th respondent in issuing impugned notices, while admitting issuance of DKT pattas assigning 2 ½ cents of land to each petitioner, but the petitioners violated the terms and conditions of the DKT patta granted in their favour, thereby the respondent authorities initiated the proceedings under Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act No. 9 of 1977) for resumption of the land. In the process of resumption, the impugned notices were issued to the petitioners, but no explanation was submitted by the petitioners so far and therefore the respondent authorities are entitled to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
6. Undoubtedly, the land referred in the notices is in occupation of the petitioners and it is assigned land, but the only contention of the respondent authorities is that the petitioners 1 (2013) 2 ALT Page 141 3 failed to comply the terms and conditions of the DKT patta granted in their favour. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners were not provided minimum amenities to raise constructions to stay therein, thereby they did not raise permanent constructions and instead they raised thatched huts and sheds living therein. Such disputed question of fact cannot be decided now in this writ petition while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and record any finding.
7. However, it is for the petitioners to submit their explanation to the impugned notices, dated 30.09.2020 within the specified time and it is not known whether any explanation was submitted by the petitioners or not, as no copy of such explanation is not placed on record by the petitioners. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation for the impugned notice, submitted by the petitioners, still the respondents are under obligation to pass appropriate order, in accordance with Section 4 of the Act.
8. The major contention of petitioners is that even though when a patta was granted as per BSO (21) of A.P. Revenue Board Standing Orders, the Tahsildar/4th respondent is incompetent to resume the land by issuing notice to the petitioners. No doubt, the patta was granted in terms of BSO (21) of A.P. Revenue Board Standing Orders, but such grant is always subject to terms and conditions contained therein. As per the terms and conditions of the DKT patta granted in favour of the petitioners, the Government is at liberty to resume the land by canceling the patta granted in their favour, but the Government includes its official. 4
9. For better appreciation Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act IX of 1977 is extracted as hereunder:-
4. Consequences of breach of 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 Section 3, 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) (i) reassign the said resumed land, other than those lands/areas as may be notified by the Government from time to time in public interest and for public purpose, to the transferee who purchased the land in good faith and for valuable consideration on or before 29th January, 2007, subject to the condition that he/she is landless poor person and is in occupation of the land by using the said land for agriculture or as house site, as on the date of taking possession by eviction; Provided that the reassignment in case of transferee shall be limited to only such an extent that the total holding of the re-assignee including any other land held by him/her does not exceed 5.00 Acres dry land or 2 1/2 Acres wet land; Provided further that where the transferee who has purchased the land and got reassignment of it, or his legal heir, transfers the reassigned land, the land shall be resumed for assignment to the other eligible landless poor;
(ii) restore the said assigned land, other than those lands/ areas as may be notified by the Government from time to time in public interest and for public purpose, to the original assignee, subject to the condition that he or she is landless poor person as on the date of restoration for one time; or
(iii) assign to other eligible landless poor person: Provided that the restoration of land shall be limited to only such an extent that the total holding including any other land held by him/her does not exceed 5.00 Acres dry land or 21/2 Acres wet land; Provided further that where the original assignee or his legal heir, after first restoration transfers the assigned land, the land shall be resumed for assignment to the other eligible landless 5 poor; Provided also that if no eligible landless poor persons are available in the village/area, the resumed land will be utilised for public purpose;
(c) In the areas which may be notified by Government from time to time, lands resumed under clause 4(a) above, shall be utilized for public purpose.
10. A bare look at Section 3 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act No. 9 of 1977), where before or after the commencement of this Act any land has been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for purpose of cultivation or as a house-site then, notwithstanding to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force or in the deed to transfer or other document relating to such land, it shall not be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been transferred, and accordingly no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer.
11. In the present case it is the contention of the respondents that the petitioners alienated the property in contravention of the terms and conditions of the DKT patta allotted to them. In such a case, the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar is incompetent but only the Revenue Divisional Officer is competent in view of law laid down by the single judge of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad reported in P.V.Satyanarayana Murthy's case (referred supra).
12. Applying the principle laid down in the above decision, the impugned notice, dated 30.09.2020 are hereby set aside giving liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action, in accordance with law.
6
13. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dated: 19.10.2020 VSL 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Writ Petition No.19048 of 2020 Date: 19-10-2020 VSL