WP/21524/2007 of Sri Akkineni Venkatratnam, Vs The State of A.P. on 31 December 2010

ORDER:

The petitioner challenges the action of respondents 1 to 3 intaking possession of the land admeasuring Ac.25.00 in Survey No.216of Nuzivid Revenue Village, Krishna District, in the course of enforcingthe orders passed under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling onAgricultural Holdings) Act, on a declaration filed by the 4[th] respondent.

The 4[th] respondent owned different extents of land in variousSurvey Numbers of Nuzivid and other villages. As required under theAct, he filed a declaration. After causing detailed enquiry on thedeclaration, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Bandar, passed an orderdated 27.01.1996 to the effect that the 4[th] respondent has to surrenderland to an extent of Ac.1.1254 standard holdings. After the orders became final, the Land Reforms Tribunal required the 4[th] respondentto identify the lands for surrender.

One of the items declared by the 4[th] respondent was the land,admeasuring Ac.50.00, in R.S.No.216 of Nuzivid Village. It is statedthat out of the said land, Ac.25.00 was settled in favour of thepetitioner. The same was accepted by the Tribunal and that extentwas deleted from the holding of the 4[th] respondent. The latter hadagreed to surrender the remaining portion of land in R.S.No.216, incompliance with the orders passed under the Act. The petitionerstates that the land settled in his favour is on the northern side ofR.S.No.216 and still, the respondents are trying to take possession of the northern side portion, under the guise of accepting the surrenderfrom the 4[th] respondent.

The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating inter alia thatthe 4[th] respondent himself identified the northern portion ofR.S.No.216 for surrender and there is absolutely no basis for the claimof the petitioner.

At one stage of the writ petition, this court passed an order on08.12.008 requiring the Assistant Director of Survey and LandRecords, Krishna District, to demarcate the land in Survey No.216 intwo equal portions on northern and southern sides. The report togetherwith the sketches has since been submitted.

Sri S.R.Ashok, learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner submits that there is absolutely no doubt or controversy thatthe land settled in favour of the petitioner is on the northern side and inthat view of the matter, there is no basis for the respondents to takepossession of the land on the northern side of the survey number. Hecontends that even the 4[th] respondent could not have interfered withthe possession of the land of the petitioner on the northern side andunder the guise of accepting the surrender from the 4[th] respondent,respondents 1 to 3 cannot act in a different way.

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand,submits that to discharge his obligation under the Act and to complywith the orders passed by the Tribunal, the 4[th] respondent hasidentified the specific area in the survey number and the possessionwas taken only in accordance therewith. It is further stated that thepossession of the land was taken way back in the year 1996 and different parts of it were handed over to various departments.

Sri Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent submits that his client categorically indicated that hewould surrender the land in the southern portion, particularly in view ofthe fact that the land in the northern portion was settled in favour of thepetitioner.

The land in R.S.No.216 of Nuzivid Village, is a vast extent of 50acres. It is important to note that it was not exclusively owned by asingle individual. By the time the Act came to be enacted,approximately half of the survey number was settled in favour of thepetitioner. The remaining half was held by the 4[th] respondent. In the proceedings under the Act, vis-à-vis the 4[th] respondent, it ultimately emerged that he had to surrender 1.1254 standardholdings. He did indicate that he would surrender the land owned byhim, in R.S.No.216.

Conclusion

It is not as if the portions owned by the petitioner and the 4[th] respondent in Sy.No.216 were not identified. The northern portionwas settled in favour of the petitioner, and the left over southern portionwas with the 4[th] respondent. Therefore, it was only the southernportion, that could have been surrendered, in that survey number. Another aspect, which needs to be taken note of, is that, in the survey,that was conducted in compliance with the directions issued by thisCourt, it emerged that, apart from the lands owned by the petitionerand 4[th] respondent, there are lands belonging to other persons also. They are depicted in the blue colour, and assigned R.S.Nos.200, 201and 1046. The report discloses that the northern portion of Ac.25.36

cents in R.S.No.216 is in two bits of Ac.12.26 cents and 13.10 cents,and the southern portion is also in two bits of Ac.12.26 cents and 13.10cents.

This is not a case where the Government claimed originalownership of the land. It has only accepted the surplus land from the4[th] respondent, under the provisions of the Act. Time and again, thisCourt held that a declarant under the Act has the absolute discretion tosurrender the land, of his choice, towards surplus. When there is nodispute between the petitioner, on the one hand, and the 4[th]respondent, on the other hand, the respondents 1 to 3 do not have any independent and exclusive right, to insist on surrenderof a particular piece of land.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and it isdirected that respondents 1 to 3 shall be entitled to take possession ofonly the southern portion of the land, which is demarcated andidentified by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. Thepetitioner shall be entitled to remain in possession of the northernportion.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Dt.21-01-2009.

_______________________

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

JSU/KO