WP/29038/2009 of Gadiraju Lakshmikumari, Vs The District Collector, on 31 December 2009

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by Gadiraju Lakshmi kumari seekingmandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering withher peaceful possession and enjoyment of land admeasuring Ac.0-49cents in Survey No.210/1C, Ac.0.49 cents in Sy.No.210/1D, Ac.1.00cents in Survey No.211/1B and an extent of Ac.1.00 cents inSy.No.211/1C totaling an extent of Ac.2.98 cents of agricultural landsin Pydichinthapadu village, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari Districtwithout following due process of law, is arbitrary and illegal.

2. The petitioner is the wife of Venkata Subba Raju. Her husbandpurchased Ac.0-49 cents in Survey No.210/1C, Ac.0.49 cents inSy.No.210/1D, Ac.1.00 cents in Survey No.211/1B and an extent ofAc.1.00 cents in Sy.No.211/1C totaling an extent of Ac.2.98 cents fromV.Venkateswara Rao under registered sale deed dated 11.7.1991. Herhusband was in possession and enjoyment of the said lands till theyear 2001. In the year 2001, her husband left the house and sincethen his whereabouts are not known. From the year 2001, she hasbeen cultivating the lands with the help of her father-in-law. Herhusband mortgaged the land to Vysya Bank Ltd., Visakoderu branchin the year 2001. He paid some instalments and thereafter committeddefault. The Vysya Bank Ltd., Visakoderu branch filed O.S.No.335 of2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram for recovery ofthe loan amount and the said suit is pending. While so, in month of October 2009, the staff of revenue authorities came to the land andinsisted her to vacate the land as the lands belong to theGovernment. It is her case that she has not been put on notice ascontemplated under the provisions of A.P.Assigned Lands(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, “ the Act”). Therefore,the action of the respondents in taking steps to evict her from thelands without passing any order and without conducting any enquiryis contrary to the law and in violation of the principles of naturaljustice. Hence this writ petition assailing the action of the respondentsin forcing her to vacate the lands in her occupation.

3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 31.12.2009. An interim directioncame to be issued on the even date to the official respondents not tointerfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitionerin respect of the lands Ac.0-49 cents in Survey No.210/1C, Ac.0.49cents in Sy.No.210/1D, Ac.1.00 cents in Survey No.211/1B and anextent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.211/1C situated at Pydichintapadu(v), Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District without following dueprocess of law, vide W.P.M.P.No.37662 of 2009.

4. Respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance and filedW.V.M.P.No.1363 of 2010 with a prayer to vacate the interim ordergranted in W.P.M.P.No.37662 of 2009.

5. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with theconsent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writpetition is taken up for final disposal.

6. The counter of respondents 1 to 3, in brief, is:- (a) An extent of 10.91 cents comprising R.S.Nos.210, 211, 212, 213and 214 was classified as Government dry in Pydichintapadu village of Eluru Mandal as the same was surrendered by the declaranttowards his excess land under the provisions of Land Reforms Act. After taking possession of the said lands, the same has been allottedto the landless poor as mentioned below:- (b) The assignees alienated the lands to third parties, namely,Indukuri Subba Raju. Proceedings have been initiated for restorationof the assigned lands by issuing Form No.1 notice to original

assignees and Form No.2 to the alienee. Since the alienee wasstated to be residing in Hyderabad, notice could not be served on him. The Tahsildar, Eluru passed resumption orders vide ProceedingNo.553/2007, Dt.20.8.2007. The land admeasuring Ac.2.98 cents inR.S.Nos.210/1C, 1D and 211/1B and 1C of Pydichintapudu village was taken possession by the Mandal Revenue Inspector on22.7.2007. The original assignees filed an appeal against the orderpassed by the Tahsildar, Eluru before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru. The Revenue Divisional Officer considered the appeal of theassignees and ordered restoration of the land to them, videProceedings No.D.13/07, dt.29.12.2007. Pursuant to the orders of theRevenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, the Tahsildar, Eluru restored theland to the original assignees. The petitioner has no title nor she is inpossession and therefore, no notice need to be served on her. Eventhe entries in the Adangal and 10(1) Account do not reflect of thepetitioner being owner or possessor of the lands in question.

7. The petitioner filed reply affidavit. It is stated in the reply affidavitthat there is no person by name Indukuri Subbaraju in Pydichintapaduvillage. It is further stated in the reply affidavit that if the officialrespondents could not serve Form No.1 notice on Indukuri Subbaraju,they could have conducted other modes of service of notice. Evenotherwise, Form-I notice was served on the original assignees on13.9.2007 whereas the order was passed on 20.8.2007 andtherefore, the order of resumption could not be stated to be inaccordance with the provisions of the Act. For better appreciation, Imay refer para (4) of the reply affidavit and it is thus:- “ In reply to para 4, it is submitted that the 4[th] respondent has got lands more than 40 acres of land adjacent to thelands covered by Survey Numbers 210, 211, 212, 213 and

214 in Pydichinthapalli village. It is learnt that the 4[th]respondent came to know that these lands were assigned tothe Schedule caste persons in the village. In fact against theseveral resumption orders passed by the 3[rd] respondent, nooriginal assignee preferred appeal to the 2[nd] respondent andas per the counter affidavit it is also not known which originalassignee filed the appeal against which resumption order. Thereafter pursuant to the orders passed by the 2[nd]respondent dated 29-12-2007, it is not known therespondents have restored which land to which assignee.No details were given by the respondents. In the revenuerecords, i.e., either in the Adangal or in 10(1) account, thename of the 4[th] respondent was not mentioned. Thereforethe 4[th] respondent with the connivance of the officialrespondents and with his political background, tried toencroach the lands. As the subject matter of the lands belongto the Government, the assignee has got right to enjoy thesame. If the purchaser with the bona fide intention and withgood faith purchased the lands, his possession should havebeen protected as per the Sub-Section 5 of Section 3 ofA.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Inspite the fact that the 4[th] respondent was made as one of therespondent, he did not file any counter affidavit. Therefore this Hon’ble Court ought to have interfered and protect theinterest of petitioner and allow the writ petition. Otherwisethe petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury”.

The writ petitioner filed WPMP No.42572 of 2012 seeking leave to fileadditional affidavit. The said W.P.M.P came to be allowed on28.12.2012. The petitioner stated in the additional affidavit thatVungara Kanaka Lingeswara Rao purchased the lands from theoriginal assignees viz., Bantumilli Bapuji, Penumalla Loka Raju andPenumalla Bhushanam under registered sale deeds, dated05.06.1986 and subsequently the said Vungara Kanaka LingeswaraRao executed a registered sale deed on 11.07.1991 in favour of herhusband Gadiraju Venkata Subba Raju in respect of the assigned lands admeasuring Ac.2.98 cents.

8. Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel contends that thehusband of the petitioner is in possession of the land admeasuring Ac.2-98 cents and since her husband left home in 2001 without anyintimation, she has been cultivating the lands with the support of herfather-in-law and therefore, she deserves to be put on notice in caseshe is to be evicted from the lands on the ground that the alienationof land in favour of her husband is in violation of the provisions of theAct. It is also contended by him that since the husband of thepetitioner purchased the land in good faith and as he is landless poor,sale in favour of her husband is saved from the provisions of the Act. It is also contended by him that there is no person by name IndukuriSubbaraju and therefore, notice sought to be served on a non-existing person cannot be said to be in tune with the provisions of theAct. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on theDivision Bench judgment of this Court in K.Sriramachandra Murthy Raju v. The State of A.P.[[1]]and judgment of learned Single Judge ofthis Court in E.Karunakar Reddy v. Mandal Revenue Officer,Tirupati Rural Mandal[[2]].

9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits thatthe assignees were put on notice in Form No.1 whereas the notice inForm No.II was sought to be served on the alienee, namely, Indukuri Subbaraju and as his whereabouts were not known, notice could notbe served. It is also contended by the learned Government Pleader that the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act hasbeen followed in resuming the assigned land and thereafter, thesame lands came to be restored to the original assignees, pursuantto the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, on appeal presented by the assignees. It is also contended by him thatsince the procedure contemplated under the Act has been followed,the petitioner, who is neither the owner nor possessor of the land covered under resumption orders cannot be permitted to assail thesaid orders on the ground of principles of natural justice.

10. Learned Government Pleader produced the entire file relating toresumption orders passed by the Tahsildar, Eluru Mandal, WestGodavari District-3[rd] respondent. I have gone through the entire filecomprising 177 pages. The Tahsildar, Eluru Mandal initiatedproceedings for resumption of the assigned land as the assigneesalienated the land in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Heissued Form No.1 notice to the assignees and Form No.2 notice to thealienee, namely, Indukuri Subba Raju as well as Goli Rama Rao-4[th]respondent herein. Notice to Indukuri Subbaraju could not be servedas he was stated to have left the village and his address particulars were not known.

11. Form No.1 notice came to be issued to the following persons:-

1) Nallamilli Raghavulu

2) Penumala Loka Raju

3) Penumala Paramathmudu

4) Penumala Bhushanam

5) Bantumilli Bapuji

6) Yalla Naganna

7) Pallem Luzer

8) Vhitala Venkata Ratnam

9) Mungara Koti Lingeswara Rao

10) Mungara Brahmayya

11) Ghantasala Bhanu

12) Pallem George

13) Moru Rampandu

14) Mungara Kantha Rao

15) Sydu Jayanthi Babu

16) Penumala Tirupathi Rao

17) Daggumilli Adam

18) Nallumilli Mohana Rao

12. The Mandal Revenue Officer passed resumption orders afterissuing notice and after considering the report of the Village RevenueOfficer, dated 16.04.2007. The original assignees challenged theresumption order by filing an appeal before the Revenue DivisionalOfficer and the appeal filed by them came to be allowed restoring thelands to the possession of the original assignees. The petitionerclaims that her husband purchased the lands from Kanaka LingeswaraRao and was in possession of the lands till he left the house in theyear 2001 and thereafter, the lands continued to be in her occupation. The only document filed by the petitioner to speak of her possession isthe Adangal copies up dated as on January, 2004. The name ofneither the petitioner nor her husband appeared in the possessorycolumn of No.2 Adangal. In the absence of any material to speak ofthe possession of the petitioner or her husband, it cannot be said thatthe respondents are contemplating to dispossess her without followingthe due process of law. When the petitioner failed to substantiate herplea of possession over the land in dispute, no relief could be grantedto her to protect her possession under the extra-ordinary jurisdiction ofthis Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

13. Accordingly, I find that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.

Date:31[st] December, 2012.

RAR/CS

[1]1997(1) (A.P) 138 Law Summary1997(1) (A.P) 138 Law Summary [2]2001(1) ALT 4002001(1) ALT 400

______________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.