Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Y Srikanth vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 August, 2019
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO. 11142 of 2019
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
is filed for the following relief:
"... to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of
the 4th respondent in interfering with the petitioner's
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land Ac.3-77 cents in Survey No.1603/1, situated at Kothakota Village accounts, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District, without following due process of law is illegal and arbitrary and discriminatory, beside violating principles of natural justice...."
It is the contention of the petitioner before this Court that the land in an extent of Ac.3-77 cents in Survey No.1603/1, situated at Kothakota Village accounts, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District and it was assigned to T. Janakamma by granting DKT Patta, who in turn by executing a sale letter, dated 07.02.1985 for a sum of Rs.13,500/-, delivered possession of the property to the petitioner. Since the date of purchase under the sale letter, the petitioner is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. It is also contended that this petitioner is landless poor and alienation by original beneficiary under DKT patta is entitled to effect the transfer and does not amount to violation of Section 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and therefore he is entitled to continue in possession and enjoyment of the property as a owner and possessor.
While, the matter stood thus, the 4th respondent/ Tahsildar, Puthalapattu Mandal, on 23.07.2019, came along with his subordinates and trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner once again and threatened to foist a criminal case against the petitioner, if he did not vacate the land. The 4th respondent and his 2 officials are not entitled to take possession of the property forcibly without following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Section 3 of the AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The inaction of the 4th respondent is questioned in this present writ petition.
Heard, Sri N. Padmanabha Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents.
It is the contention of the petitioner from the beginning that the petitioner is landless poor and the purchase of the property by landless poor is protected under Section 3 (5) of A.P. Assigned Lands (Probation of transfers) Act, 1977 (Act No.9 of 1977).
The learned Government Pleader appearing for Revenue disputed the status of this petitioner as landless poor, while, contending that the petitioner is not entitled to claim any protection.
It is an admitted fact that the land was assigned to Janakamma by granting DKT Patta and she alienated the same by executing a sale letter, dated 07.02.1985. The alienation of the assigned land is prohibited by A.P. Act No.9 of 1977, if the purchaser is a landless poor, such alienation does not amount to violation of conditions of DKT patta and such question cannot be decided by this Court while exercising jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover the patta granted in favour of the original beneficiary Janakamma is also not placed on record while accepting the contention of the petitioner that it was originally assigned to Janakamma, who in turn alienated the same to this petitioner. However, if for any reason, the Government resumes the land by following the procedure under Section 4 of A.P. 3 Assigned Lands (Probation of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act No.9 of 1977) R/w Rule 4, the remedy available to the petitioner is elsewhere, but this Court cannot issue positive direction to consider the request of this petitioner while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, the alienation of the property by original beneficiary, Janakamma is prohibited. Hence, I find no merits in this writ petition and deserve to be dismissed.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. However, a liberty is given to the petitioner to file or prefer an appeal under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Probation of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act No.9 of 1977), if permissible.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Dt. 09.08.2019 PGR