WP/15688/1996 of Chinthalapudi Lakshmikanthamma Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 29 December 2006

O R D E R:

Seeking a direction from this Court to mutate the names of thepetitioners in the revenue records in respect of the lands assigned tothem, the present writ petition is filed.

The petitioners were assigned lands under B.S.O. 15 Para 11(3)under the category of political sufferers. Among the conditions ofassignment is that the land should be brought under cultivation within twoyears from the date of the order either by the assignee or by hissuccessor in title. As the lands were assigned to the petitioners in theyear 1992, they ought to have been brought to cultivation by 1994, buteven till 2002, the lands were not brought under cultivation. From out ofthe total extent of Ac.45.89 cents, approximately Ac.32.00 is said to beunder the occupation and enjoyment of third parties and the remainingextent is said to be lying waste.

It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners had violatedthe conditions of grant of assignment and that condition 13 of assignmentgives liberty to the Government to resume the land withoutcompensation. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that some of thepetitioners had given a general power of attorney in favour of one IndukuriVenkata Satyanarayana Raju in the year 1994 and that the general powerof attorney was registered at the Sub-Registrar’s Office at Vijayawada. Itis stated that, while granting patta, the Mandal Revenue Officer hadordered that the beneficiaries should pay land value and interest from fasli1403 in 15 instalments but none of the writ petitioners had paid the landrate till date. According to the respondents, unless the entire amounttowards land value and interest is paid, the question of mutation does notarise. It is also stated that, as the petitioners are not in possession andenjoyment of the lands ever since they were granted D-form pattas andothers are in occupation thereof and enjoying the lands by way of Fishiculture and Prawn culture, the question of mutation in favour of thepetitioners does not arise.

Sri P.Sri Raghuram, learned counsel for the petitioners, wouldcontend that, as long as the petitioners continue to remain as pattedars,they are entitled for their names being mutated in the revenue records inaccordance with the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and PattadarPass Books Act, 1971.

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that, while therespondents were entitled to resume the lands as early as in the year1994, inasmuch as the conditions of grant had been violated by thepetitioners herein by not cultivating the lands within a period of two yearsand in not paying the land value with interest and as third parties had beenput in possession, it was only because of the pendency of the writpetition, that no action was taken to resume the lands. LearnedGovernment Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the respondentauthorities intend to take action against the petitioners herein for violatingthe conditions of grant of assignment and that necessary action in thisregard would be taken shortly.

It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226of the Constitution of India is discretionary and is to be exercised only infurtherance of larger public interest. While the contention of Sri P.SriRaghuram, that as long as the petitioners continue to be the pattedarsthey are entitled to have their names mutated in accordance with theprovisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971,cannot be said to be without merit, in the light of the specific allegations inthe counter affidavit that the petitioners had violated the conditions of thegrant, I see no reason to exercise discretion under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to interfere in their favour. Suffice it to hold that, incase, the respondent-authorities fail to take action against the petitionersfor violating the conditions of grant of assignment within a period of twomonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the respondentsshall take necessary action to cause entries in the revenue records intheir favour without prejudice to their right to take action against thepetitioners for violating the conditions of assignment.

usd

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

___________

29-12-2006