Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. According to the petitioners in W.P.No. 1640 of 1994, Chandraiahgari Venkata Rami Reddy does not have any direct class I legal heirs, but they claim that they are the legal heirs of the said Chandraiahgari Venkata Rami Reddy in the absence of class I heirs. The lands assigned to the said Chandraiahgari Venkata Rami Reddy were sold to the petitioners in W.P.No. 1640 of 1994 by a registered sale deed No. 2313 dated 21-4-1984.

5. All these assignments of the Government lands in favour of the original assignees were subject to certain conditions incorporated in Form 'D' Pattas issued to them. Condition No. 17of the Conditions incorporated in the Form 'D' Pattas issued to the assigness provides that in the event of the land being required for a project or any other public purpose, the land will be resumed and no compensation shall be paid to the assignee and the decision of the Government or other authority empowered by them in this behalf shall be final on the question, whether the purpose for which the land is to be resumed is a public purpose or not.

10. Sri P.S. Narayana, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned action is violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution and the petitioners could be deprived of their properties only by authority of law. The learned Counsel submitted that Condition No. 17 incorporated in Form 'D' Patta is not a law within the meaning of that term as used in Article 300-A of the Constitution. Adverting to the case in W.P.No. 1640 of 1994 Sri Narayana argued that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in seeking to resume the lands purported to be Under Section 4(1) of the Act is ultra vires of the Act itself. The learned Counsel would highlight that if a power is granted by the law to an authority for a specific purpose, then such a power should be exercised only for achieving such purpose and if the power is used for any other purpose, such an action should be held to be ultra vires of the law. Sri Narayana, the learned Counsel, would place an alternative argument by submitting that assuming that the second respondent has the power under Condition No. 17 of the Conditions incorporated in 'D' Form Patta to resume the lands, nevertheless his action after a lapse of 33 years should be held to be totally unreasonable, arbitrary, unfair and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thirdly Sri Narayana, the learned Counsel, submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 have no power at all to resume the lands straight away by virtue of power reserved for them under Condition No. 17 and the only remedy is to approach competent Civil Court for resumption of the lands. The learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand, would support the impugned actions of the respondents 1 and 2 and contend that 'D' Form Patta was nothing but an agreement of contract between the Government and the original assignees and it was permissible for the second respondent to invoke a power reserved under Condition No. 17 of 'D' Form Patta. Meeting the case of the petitioners in W.F.No. 1640 of 1994, the learned High Court Government Pleader contended that admittedly the original assignee transferred the lands in question to the petitioners in that writ petition by way of registered sale deed on 21-4-1984 after the Act came into force and therefore it was permissible and competent for the second respondent to invoke the power Under Section 4(1) of the Act to resume the lands. Sri B.V. Bhadram, the learned Counsel for the third respondent while adopting and supporting the submissions made by the learned High Court Government Pleader, would further contend that the resumption of the lands from the petitioners is in public interest and large number of milk producers in and around Tirupathi Town are going to be benefitted and therefore no case is made out to interfere in the matter.

11. Before adverting to the rival contentions placed before the Court by the " learned Couounsel for the parties it is necessary to note the conditions subject to which the assignments in Form 'D' Patta were made in favour of the original assignees and the relevant provisions of the Act. As earlier noted, the lands were assigned to the original assignees by the Tahsildar under S.O.15 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders subject to the following conditions as specified in Form 'D' Patta (Appendix-V).

25. This takes us to the case in W.P.No. 1640 of 1994. In this case, the lands in question are sought to be resumed by the second respondent by virtue of the power granted to him Under Section 4(1) of the Act.

26. Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting the Act reads thus:

"The Government have launched, with effect from the 1st November, 1969, a special crash programe for assignment of Government waste lands to the landless poor persons. The rules regarding assignment of land and the conditions incorporation in 'D' form pattas prohibit alienation of such However, past experience has shown that substantial extents of lands assigned to landless poor persons have been actually alienated and are in possession of well-to-do persons. As the existing rules do not have any provision for punishment of persons who have purchased such lands, efforts made for assigning large extent of lands to landless poor persons going waste. With a view to enforce the objective more effectively it is considered that a protective legislation is necessary so as to prescribe a punishment to persons who have purchased such lands. Further, there have been requests from time to time, for enacting a protective legislation against transfers and alienations of assigned lands on the model of Legislation existing in regard to the Scheduled Tribes in the Scheduled areas of Andhra Pradesh, which prohibits alienation of lands and provides for restoration of such lands to the assignees. It has therefore been decided to undertake legislation immediately to prohibit alienation of lands assigned to landless poor persons and to provide for punishment of purchasers of such land".