Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. While the writ petition was pending, the 4th respondent, a Co-operative House Building Society was impleaded.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that the land was transferred in their favour on payment of value as assessed.

7. It is also their case that the petitioners are landless poor and eligible for the allotment or transfer of the agricultural lands under the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder.

8. In September, 1979, transfer certificates were issued to them requiring them to pay the value of the land as assessed under Section 14(2) in 13 equal instalments. It is also their case that they have paid the entire amount. Some of the transferees have expired and the L.Rs are in possession of the land assigned, transferred in favour of the original transferees. After payment of the amount, the final patta certificates were issued to all the transferees. One of the conditions mentioned in the assignment are that the land shall be heritable and not alienable. The land assigned so shall be brought under direct cultivation three years from the date of granting final patta. The petitioners contend that they made every effort to bring the land under cultivation, but on account of the rockey terrain, some of the land have to be kept fallow as it was full of boulders and rocks. While so, show-cause notice was issued on 13-12-1990 by the Joint Collector, proposing to cancel the patta under Section 166(b) of the Land Revenue Act and thereafter final proceedings were issued on 16-5-1992 cancelling the patta. The same was challenged in Writ Petition No. 7845 of 1992. The said writ petition was allowed setting aside the cancellation order and however this Court observed that the quashing of the cancellation of the order would not bar the authorities to lake action under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973. Thereafter, another show-cause notice was issued on 26-7-1996 to which they submitted explanation, but however, the orders were passed on 12-9-1996 cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioners.

14. But, the principal question that calls for consideration is whether the Government is empowered to cancel the patta after a lapse of nearly 15 years. Even assuming that they have violated the terms and conditions of grant of patta, yet, can it be said for them to cancel after such a long lapse of time and more especially in some cases the original allottees died and L.Rs are in possession of the lands. In similar identical case falling under Section 32 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, the Supreme Court in Ponnala Nursing Rao v. Nallollu Pantaiah, , observed that an application under Section 32 of the Act for restoration of the possession by protected tenant has to be moved within a reasonable time. It observed in para 3 as follows: