Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Buddaraju Subrahmanyam, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 May, 2020
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
AND
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT APPEAL No.215 of 2020
JUDGMENT:(per Lalitha Kanneganti, J) This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent Act, aggrieved by the interim order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.8161 of 2020 dated 13.04.2020.
2. The case of the appellant, who is the writ petitioner, in a nutshell, is that the deceased father of the appellant was assigned agricultural land of an extent of Ac.0.90 cents in S.No.30/2C1 of Nidigatla village, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District on 25.12.1990 and a D-form patta was granted in favour of the appellant's father. Thereafter the appellant's father put the land to cultivation and raised various fruit bearing trees in the said land. It is stated that the said trees are aged about 15 years. The appellant's father died on 11.12.1995 leaving the appellant and his brother as his legal heirs. In the family partition, D-form patta land i.e. an extent of Ac.0.90 cents fell to the share of the appellant and ever since, he is cultivating the said land. The Tahdildar, Korukonda has also mutated the name of the appellant in the revenue records and the pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued in the name of the petitioner.
3. The Tahsildar, Korukonda who is 4th respondent herein, has served a notice dated 07.03.2020, both to the appellant and his brother, which 1 was received by the appellant on 18.03.2020. The said notice was issued in the name of appellant's father. As per the said show cause notice, the appellant has violated the D-form patta conditions by constructing house in the said land, which is meant for cultivation. The 4th respondent directed the appellant to submit his explanation as to why D-form patta should not be cancelled within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. It appears from the material available on record that the appellant has submitted a reply on 23.03.2020 stating that the notice was in the name of his father, though his name was mutated in the revenue records. He further stated that he raised thatched house for looking after the cultivation and in the year 1993 the thatched house was gutted in a fire accident and the A.P State Housing Corporation sanctioned housing loan to raise pucca house in the year 2009. Thereafter, he has been residing in the said house and doing agricultural operations. The pucca house is raised only in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents out of Ac.0.90 cents for residential purpose and in the remaining extent, agricultural operations are carried out. He requested the respondent authorities to drop further proceedings.
4. The 4th respondent has passed order dated 27.03.2020 stating that the District Collector has directed to submit the report duly identifying the lands of the Government, which are idle and also the lands of other departments for implementing "Navaratnalu - Pedalandariki illu". As per the said orders, it is proposed to acquire Ac.41.57 cents in S.Nos.7/4A and 7/4B, which is an assigned land in Nidigatla village, Korukonda Mandal for 2 granting house sites to the beneficiaries identified in Rajamahendravaram Urban Mandal. Out of the said total extent of Ac.41.57 cents, an extent of Ac.0.90 cents in S.No.30/2C1 was assigned to the appellant's father by way of granting D-Form Patta with conditions. The order further states that though show cause notice was issued on 07.03.2020, no reply was received from the appellant and the Government has decided to take possession of the said land in public interest as a part of "Navaratnalu - Pedalandariki illu" programme for the purpose of assigning house sites. The order of the 4th respondent further reveals that the Government is ready to resume the assigned land in the public interest as per Condition 17 of the patta conditions and orders were issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to pay ex-gratia to the pattadars or their legal heirs in case of resumption of those lands for public purpose vide G.O.Ms.No.259 Rev. (Assn-I) dated 21.06.2016.
5. Assailing the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 27.03.2020, the appellant has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.8161 of 2020.
6. The specific grounds raised in the writ petition are that the impugned proceedings are issued in the name of dead person i.e. father of the appellant. Secondly, the show cause notice was given on the ground of violation of patta conditions but the final order which is impugned in the writ petition is passed on a different ground. Further, the 4th respondent who has received the reply to the show cause notice, has failed to consider the same and the order is passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice.
3
7. The learned single Judge by order dated 13.04.2020 has passed an interim order directing the respondents not to resume the land till determination and payment of compensation to the petitioner, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259 dated 21.06.2016, during the pendency of the writ petition.
8. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge on the limited ground that though the 4th respondent issued a show cause notice on the ground of violation of patta conditions, but without considering his explanation, the impugned order is passed on a ground which is unrelated to the show cause notice and in the name of a dead person. The grievance of the appellant is that the learned single Judge has failed to take into consideration this aspect and directed the authorities to pay compensation and till such time, not to dispossess the appellant.
9. When the matter came up for admission, with the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally.
10. It is undisputed fact that in the show cause notice dated 07.03.2020 issued by the 4th respondent, the petitioner was never given any information with regard to resumption of land under the "Navaratnalu - Pedalandariki illu" Scheme, but the show cause notice only speaks about particular violation of patta conditions by the appellant. The appellant states that he has submitted his reply, whereas the impugned order shows that no such reply was received by the 4th respondent. In 4 the final order dated 27.03.2020, there is absolutely no discussion with regard to violation of patta conditions, but simply it states that no reply is received from the appellant and the order further reveals that as per the orders of the District Collector, they require those lands for implementing the scheme "Navaratnalu - Pedalandariki illu" and directed the Mandal Surveyor to take possession of the assigned land.
11. The purpose of issuing the show cause notice is giving the person an opportunity to submit his case by following the principles of audi alteram partem. We are of the view that the 4th respondent has travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice and passed the impugned order on altogether new grounds, which is unsustainable in law.
12. In the light of the above, we deem it appropriate that ends of justice would be met, if the order dated 27.03.2020 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 4th respondent for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation, if any and pass an appropriate order thereon.
13. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the order passed the 4th respondent dated 27.03.2020. The appellant is directed to submit his explanation to the show cause notice dated 07.03.2020 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such explanation from the appellant, the 4th respondent shall pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law within a further period of 4 weeks. No order as to costs.
5
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J ______________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 15th May, 2020 PVD 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT APPEAL No.215 of 2020 Date:15.05.2020 7 PVD 8