Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in passing resumption order vide proceedings Roc.No.1304/2019 dated 13.04.2020 for resumption of the land of the petitioners i.e. an extent of Ac.0.97 cents in R.S.No.438-1D and 438-1F belonging to petitioner No.1 and an extent of Ac.1.63 cents in R.S.No.438-1B belonging to petitioner No.2 of L.G.Padu Village, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, is without jurisdiction, highly unwarranted, suffers from non-application of mind, highly arbitrary, malafide, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.510 Revenue (Lands-I) Department dated 30.12.2019, contrary to the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short "Act 9 of 1977") and contrary to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the Act, 2013") and highly irrational, violative of principles of natural justice, and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Respondent No.3 issued an endorsement before passing resumption order dated 27.03.2020 to the petitioners stating that the Government is going to take possession of the lands for providing house sites and that the petitioners will be paid compensation as MSM,J WP_9808_2020 per the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. Therefore, the resumption order impugned in the writ petition is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.510 Revenue (Lands-I) Department dated 30.12.2019. According to it, the District Collector is competent to resume the land, thereby respondent No.2 is incompetent to resume the land.

It is further contended that the resumption order passed by respondent No.2 is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.510 Revenue (Lands-I) Department dated 30.12.2019, which contemplates that the lands alienated to Private Individuals, Private Organisations and Government Organisations or Departments, alone shall be resumed for Navaratnalu Scheme for providing house sites, on the ground of violation of conditions or non-utilisation of the allotted lands. The said G.O.Ms.No.510 dated 30.12.2019 does not contemplate resumption of lands assigned to landless poor. Therefore, the impugned resumption order is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.510 Revenue (Lands-I) Department dated 30.12.2019.

As per condition No.17 of the pattas referred to in the resumption order, it does not empower respondent No.2 to resume the lands of the petitioners for providing house sites. In fact, condition No.17 of the pattas issued to the petitioners, contemplates resumption of land only for the purpose of any project or for the self use of the Government, but not for providing house sites. Therefore, resumption of their lands is contrary to the condition No.17, as such the impugned resumption order is illegal.