Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
G. Ramanaiah, Ex-Serviceman vs Deputy Collector And Magistrate And ... on 27 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(4)ALT190, 2002 A I H C 2964, (2002) 2 LACC 320 (2002) 4 ANDH LT 190, (2002) 4 ANDH LT 190
ORDER Ghulam Mohammed, J.
1. The petitioner is an ex-serviceman. He filed the writ petition, questioning the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 23-12-1989, insofar as the same is against the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and seeks Mandamus directing the respondents to restore the possession of the assigned land of 5 acres in S.No. 123/1 of Thollagangannapalli village, Vallur Mandal, Cuddapah District to the petitioner, who was the original assignee.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the Indian Air Force on 18-10-1963 as Soldier and after serving for 18 years he retired as Sergeant on 18-10-1981. While he was in service, the then Tahsildar of Cuddapah in his proceedings BI/DKT/227/ MP/74 dated 25-11-1966, granted D.K. Patta in favour of the petitioner assigning 5 acres of land and he has been cultivating the assigned land by raising Jower crops etc. The petitioner paid land revenue upto 1976 and in the year 1978 when he was staying in Assam, he paid the land revenue by sending the D.D. dated 4-12-1978 to the Tahsildar, Cuddapah. The said D.D. was returned by proceedings dated 1-1-1979 directing the petitioner to pay the land revenue directly to the concerned Village Munsiff. Thereafter, the petitioner on availing leave, visited the Village Munsiff in order to pay the land revenue and the Village Munsif informed that the 5 acres of land in S.No. 123/1 was already reassigned to one Sri Padmanahbha Reddy, who was a Village Munsiff of Chennuru and who is a rich landlord. The petitioner submits that his assignment was never cancelled nor any notice was issued to him before reassigning the land to the Village Munsiff. The respondents have violated the principles of natural justice and played fraud on the petitioner in order to give undue benefit to the Village Minsiff of Chennuru and hence even assuming that there was a re-assignment of land, the same is void abinitio and the petitioner deemed to have been holding the said valid patta and he is entitled for restoration of possession of the assigned land under the Original Assignment patta dated 25-11-1966.
3. The petitioner, after knowing the mischief and fraud meted out to him, immediately approached the then District Collector, Cuddapah on 16-5-1979 and explained his grievance and also met the RDO, Cuddapah, and apprised the facts. On 1-1-1982, the petitioner represented the issue to the District Collector, RDO, and Tahsildar. In pursuance of his representations, the then District Collector issued a notice dated 17-7-1982 directing the RDO of Cuddapah to inquire into and call for the report from the Tahsildar with regard to assignment and reassignment of land of 5 acres and directed to take necessary action on the representation. In pursuance of the instructions of the District Collector, the RDO initiated inquiry and directed the Village Officers to appear before him with all relevant records. In furtherance of inquiry, the RDO issued notices on 11-9-1982, 8-10-1982, and 24-10-1982 respectively, fixing the different dates of inquiry. As the said enquiry was in progress, at that stage, there was a reorganization of villages and the Mandal system has been introduced by the State Government and as a consequence of which the petitioner's file has been made over to the MRO, Valluru Mandal in the new pattern, and the petitioner moved the District Collector by representations dated 4-6-1986 and 22-7-1987. With the result, the MRO, Valluru was directed to complete the enquiry. The MRO issued notices on 12-8-1986 and 31-8-1988 directing both the parties and the concerned Village Officers to appear before him with all the records on 20-8-1986 and 12-9-1988 respectively.
4. Finally, the enquiry was completed vide proceedings dated 23-12-1989 cancelling the re-assignment of land in favour of Padmanabha Reddy, the then Village Munsif of Chennuru as it was found illegal and resumed the said land in favour of the Government. It is further submitted that to the extent of resumption of land in favour of the Government, the same is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice on the grounds that the 3rd respondent while cancelling the reassignment of land ought to have simultaneously restored the possession of land to the petitioner as he was the original assignee, that the 3rd respondent ought to have seen that the land was originally assigned to the petitioner in the year 1966 and there was no breach or violation of terms and conditions of Patta by the petitioner, that the 3rd respondent ought to have seen that the petitioner was a landless poor at the time of granting patta and also he was a serving soldier for 18 years, that the 3rd respondent ought to have held that neither notice nor opportunity was given to the petitioner before re-assigning the said land in favour of Sri Padmanabha Reddy, the then Village Munsif of Chennuru, and that the 3rd respondent ought to have seen that the subsequent assignee viz., Sri Padmanabha Reddy admitted that his assignment of land was of the year 1978 and thereafter he attempted to alienate the land to some third parties by violating the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Joint Collector, Cuddapah, it is stated that the petitioner never brought the land under cultivation. The assignment was cancelled for violation of condition of Assignment prescribed in DKT and re-assigned to one Sri Padmanabha Reddy, Village Munsiff of Chennur. But the said Padmanabha Reddy sold away the land to another Mopuri Syamasundara Reddy for non-agricultural purpose for Rs. 1.00 lakh for constructing Mini Cement Plant on the land. As this is also violation of condition of DKT and under the provisions of the A.P. Assignment (Prohibition) Act, 1977, the MRO, Vallur has taken action as per the procedure laid down under the Act and resumed the land to Government Under Section 4 (1) of the Act in Mandal Revenue Officer's proceedings No. B/200/86 dated 23-12-1989. It is further stated that the land is classified as waste land and it is urged that the petitioner violated the condition of DKT and the assignment was cancelled by the then Tahsildar as he did not cultivate the land. The adangals for Fasli 1381 corresponding to 1971 and 1386 corresponding to 1976, show that the land was kept waste (Banjar) and no crops were raised. The petitioner did not cultivate the land after assignment and violated the condition of the DKT. The assignment was cancelled by the Tahsildar, Cuddapah, in 1978 and re-assigned to another person.
6. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire action of the respondents is vitiated on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the cancellation of assignment by the then Tahsildar was not preceded by any notice and opportunity and in the counter-affidavit, the reason assigned for cancellation is that during the period 1970-76, the petitioner has not brought the land under cultivation. The condition of grant stipulates that he has to bring the land under cultivation within three years and an inference has to be drawn that the petitioner has cultivated the land within the required period stipulated in the DKT Patta. Apart from this infirmity, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and a non-existent ground, the cancellation effected by the then Tahsildar is vitiated on two counts namely; a non-existent ground, which is not contemplated under the grant and not issued any notice with regard to the factum of cultivation undertaken by the petitioner and a unilateral decision was taken by the then Tahsildar by cancelling the assignment and reassigning the same in favour of Village Munsiff, which by itself is contrary to the scheme since he is a public servant and he is not a landless poor person contemplated either under the A.P. Board of Revenue Standing Orders or under Act 7 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Section 3 of the said Act defines 'landless poor' as follows:
"landless poor person" means a person, who owns an extent of land not more than (1) 011715 hectares (two and half acres) of wet land or (2) 023430 hectares (five acres) of dry land or such other extent of land has been or may be specified to the Government in this behalf from time to time and who has no other means of livelihood"
8. However, the Village Munsiff in turn sold away the land for a consideration of Rs. 1 lakh and the MRO rightly held that the sale effected by the Village Munsiff for a consideration of Rs. 1 lakh for non-agricultural purposes is in the teeth of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and the said transaction is void and rightly resumed the land in favour of the Government.
9. Now the crucial question that arises for consideration is that while resuming the land in favour of the Government, the MRO ought to have noticed that the original cancellation of assignment in favour of the petitioner by the then Tahsildar is vitiated on two counts indicated supra. He ought to have allotted the said land to the petitioner, but instead he resumed the land and given possession to the Government.
10. Since I have considered the above aspects and the cancellation of the assignment by the then Tahsildar in 1978 is violative of principles of natural justice apart from the infirmity that the petitioner has not violated the condition namely; condition No. 2 i.e., not bringing the land under cultivation within the stipulated period of three years inasmuch as there is no whisper in the counter with regard to that aspect, an inference has to be drawn that he has not violated the condition No. 2 i.e., not bringing the land under cultivation for a stipulated period of three years from the date of original grant.
11. In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the MRO is set aside to the extent of resuming the land to the Government. The land should be restored to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.