Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs V.S.Prakash on 12 July, 2019
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT APPEAL No.231 of 2019
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice) The present appeal came to be filed assailing the order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.18435 of 2009, wherein, proceedings dated 06.08.2009 issued by the 1st appellant vide G.O.Ms.No.818, were set aside and the assignment in DKT 144/4/1395 dated 23.05.1986 has been confirmed.
The writ petitioner is an ex-serviceman. The 4 th respondent in the writ petition, i.e., the Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Chittoor District, through DKT patta No.144/4/1395 dated 23.05.1986 assigned land to an extent of Ac.4.96 cents in Sy.No.390/9 & 10 of Rayalacheruvu village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Chittoor District. The writ petitioner is said to have brought the assigned land under cultivation. In evidence of his possession and enjoyment, he refers to periodical payment of cist to Government and asserts that he was raising dry crops in the assigned land. In proof of his actual enjoyment, he placed on record the pattadar pass book and title deed. On account of financial stringency, he claims to have obtained loan by mortgaging the assigned land. While things stood thus, the Tahsildar issued proceedings dated 24.06.1998 cancelling his 2 assignment. We deem it apposite to refer the certificate which reads as under:
"CERTIFICATE This is to certify that V.S. Prakash, S/o. Sriramulu Naidu, resident of Ramanaidu kandriga village, is having the following DKT lands in Rayalacheruvu Revenue village of Ramachandrapuram Mandal granted under Ex-service quota as per enquiry.
Sl. Name of the Sy.No. Extent Classification Crop Remarks
No. Enjoyer/Father Cultivation
name
1 V.S.Prakash S/o. 390/9 1-76 DKT Mango
Sriramulu Naidu Trees,
390/10 3-20
Waste
Place: R.C.Puram Tahsildar
Date: 22.08.2014 R.C.Puram Mandal"
The cancellation of the said assignment was preceded by alleged service of notice No.Roc.B/528/98 dated 24.06.1998. The service, according to the appellants, was by way of substituted service, i.e. by affixture of notice. The reasons for initiating enquiry are that the writ petitioner has not brought the land under cultivation within three years and is not residing in the village. It is clear from the record that the writ petitioner neither received notice nor was heard by the Tahsildar before cancelling assignment. The reasons for cancellation of assignment are that the writ petitioner is not resident of Rayalacheruvu village, he is not enrolled as a voter, he does not have ration card from the village and that the assigned lands are not brought under cultivation within three years from the date of assignment. By reiterating the grounds on which show cause 3 notice was issued, the Tahsildar cancelled assignment and directed resumption of the land.
The writ petitioner carried the matter in appeal and further revisions before the appellants, where the findings of the Tahsildar were upheld. Challenging the same, W.P.No.18435 of 2009 was filed, wherein the learned single Judge reversed the proceedings dated 06.08.2009 in G.O.Ms.No.818 on various grounds.
As seen from the certificate dated 22.08.2014 issued by the Tahsildar, it is clear that a mango garden was under cultivation. That being the position, the ground raised that the writ petitioner did not raise crop within three years appears to be incorrect. Even otherwise, it is very difficult to assess whether any crop was raised within three years of assignment, after so many years. Further, the 1st appellant after hearing the revision in part directed the Tahsildar to inspect the subject lands personally and furnish his report to the Government. The report was made available on 23.01.2009. The 1st appellant did not furnish a copy of the report of the Tahsildar to the writ petitioner and after a lapse of seven months from the date of hearing or receipt of report, proceedings impugned in the writ petition were issued.
Thus, viewed from any angle, we do not see any grounds to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.4
The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending, stand closed.
________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ACJ ________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J July 12, 2019 MRR