Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sarella Lalitha Kumari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 2 March, 2020
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Writ Petition No.4952 of 2020
ORDER:
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, questioning the action of respondents in taking steps to allot house site pattas in the petitioner's land in an extent of Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.128-13 situated at G. Pedapudi village, P. Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, consequently direct respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from land in an extent of Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.128-13 situated at G. Pedapudi village, P. Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District.
2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land in an extent of Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.128-13 situated at G. Pedapudi village, P. Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. Originally the property belonged to one Sarella Sampatha Rao, the said Sampatha Rao obtained loan on this property from Cooperative Society, Udumudi, P. Gannavaram village, became defaulter, the District Cooperative Central Bank authorities conducted auction, one Jalli Veeramma, W/o.Nakstram became highest bidder in the auction held on 01.06.2004. Petitioner purchased the property from the said Jalli Veeramma under registered sale deed bearing document No.709/2005, since, then the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property without any hindrance from anyone. The revenue authorities mutated the name of petitioner in 1B register, adangal, issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner.
2
3. While the matter stood thus, 4th respondent issued notice dt.15.12.2019, alleging that the petitioner is 'encroacher' of land of an extent of Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.128-13 situated at G. Pedapudi village, P. Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, which is classified as 'cart track" (Bandi Baata) and called for explanation from the petitioner within 7 days, as to why, the said land should not be resumed to the Government. The said notice itself is illegal, since it was issued not either under Land Encroachment Act or any other law, but based on G.O.Ms.No.571 (Revenue) Assignment-I Department, dated 14.09.2012. Hence, the impugned notice is illegal and requested to issue a direction to the respondents as stated above.
3. During hearing, learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the writ petition. Whereas learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that no notice is contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.571 (Revenue) Assignment-I Department, dated 14.09.2012, but the notice was issued for resumption of land, requested to pass an appropriate order.
4. As seen from record, the petitioner is in possession of the subject property. The basis for issuing notice is G.O.Ms.No.571 (Revenue) Assignment-I Department, dated 14.09.2012 which does not relate to removal of land encroachments, when the respondents are asserting that the petitioner is 'encroacher' of an extent of Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.128-13 situated at G. Pedapudi village, P. Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, they cannot resume the land and proper procedure is prescribed under A.P. Land Encroachment Act. Instead of initiating proceedings under A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 3 the Government adopted a short-cut method of issuing notice, which is not permitted under any statute. Therefore, the action of respondents in interfering with the possession of the petitioner in pursuance of notice dated 15.12.2019 is illegal, arbitrary and without any authority of law.
5. Even otherwise, the subject land is classified as 'cart track' (Bandi Baata) it is deemed to have vested in the Gram Panchayat on its constitution, as per Section 53 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, unless the same is divested from Gram Panchayat by issuing a Gazette notification under Section 58(2) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, the same cannot be assigned to any other landless poor person in terms of G.O.Ms.No.571 (Revenue) Assignment-I Department, dated 14.09.2012. Till now, no such notification was issued exercising power under Section 58(2) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act. At the same time when the petitioner is asserting that the disputed land is purchased by her from her vendor, a separate procedure is prescribed for resumption vide Sections 3 (2) of Act IX of 1977 r/w Rule 3 of Rules, 2007, is such purchase is in contravention of patta conditions and Section 3 (2) of Act IX of 1977. But sale of patta land by Cooperative Bank etc., is not hit by Section 3 (2) of Act IX of 1977. As discussed above, the impugned notice is not based on any authority of law and no Gazette notification under Section 58(2) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act was issued till date. Therefore, the notice dated 15.12.2019 is illegal, arbitrary and without any authority of law. Hence, the notice is hereby set aside. However, this Order will not preclude the respondents to take appropriate action, in accordance with law. 4
6. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no costs.
7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dated 02.03.2020 Rvk