WP/27809/2005 of Smt. L.Shahzadi Khatooon, Vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, on 28 December 2005

ORDER:

WRIT PETITION NO.27809 OF 2005

The petitioner claims that her father-in-law L.Mahaboob Khan purchased landadmeasuring Acs.25.68 in S.No.480 in Dhone Village, under registered sale deeddt.15.8.1919 bearing document No.1164 of 1919. After death of father-in-law, thehusband of the petitioner along with his brothers partitioned the land in which he gotAcs.8.56 towards his share. Thereafter, husband of the petitioner and his brotherswere enjoying the property separately. In June, 2005, fourth respondent issued anotice dt.9.6.2005 directing the petitioner and others to appear before him along withsupporting documents. It is alleged that M/s.Gayatri Juice Industries approached thelocal M.L.A. for acquiring the land of the petitioner and others and that is the reasonwhy fourth respondent issued a notice. Challenging the notice the petitioner filed W.P.No.17968 of 2005. This Court disposed of the same on 12.8.2005 directing thefourth respondent to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and passappropriate orders in the matter. This Court also directed that the petitioner shall notbe dispossessed from the land pending consideration of the matter by the fourthrespondent. As directed by this Court, the fourth respondent considered the matterand issued proceedings on 27.9.2005 observing that the land claimed by thepetitioner in S.No.480 is Government land that the petitioner did not produce anyvalid documents of title, and accordingly ordered resumption of the land to theGovernment directing taking of possession with immediate effect for providing housesites to the poor. In this Writ Petition the proceedings of the fourth respondentdt.27.9.2005 are assailed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the land is inpossession of the petitioner or her predecessors in title for more than eighty-fiveyears and therefore, the same cannot be treated as Government land. He also wouldurge that when initially a notice was issued, the land was sought to be resumed asthe same was required for setting up of Gayatri Juice Industries, but now the land isearmarked for provision of house sites and therefore the impugned order isunsustainable. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the orders passed by thisCourt in W.P.Nos.18630, 18990, 19378 and 20664 of 2005.

The petitioner was issued notice on 9.6.2005 to attend enquiry and producenecessary proof. Presumably such enquiry was done on the premise that thepetitioner has been in possession of the Government land in S.No.480. Thepetitioner produced necessary documents and after considering the same, theimpugned order has been passed resuming the land to the Government. It is adisputed question of fact as to whether the land in S.No.480 is patta land or theGovernment land. In either case, the petitioner has effective alternative remedybefore the third respondent by filing appeal. The learned counsel for the petitionerdoes not dispute this. Insofar as the procedure adopted by the fourth respondent isconcerned, there can be least objection, as prior notice was issued and explanationwas considered. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of thecase, the petitioner is given liberty to file appeal before the third respondent within aperiod of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As and when suchappeal is filed, third respondent shall entertain the appeal and dispose of the samewithin a period of four weeks thereafter duly considering all the documents producedby the petitioner before the fourth respondent. Liberty is also given to the petitioner toproduce additional evidence to prove her title to the property and disprove theGovernment’s claim. In this Writ Petition, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.