WP/16643/1997 of P.Eashwaraiah Vs The District Collector, on 28 December 2006

COMMON ORDER:

W.P.No.16643 of 1997:

1. Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is common, they areheard together.

2. The petitioner in W.P.No.16643 of 1997 is said to be a freedom fighter andhe also belongs to the backward class community. He asserts that he sufferedimprisonment during the freedom struggle. He further asserts that out of anextent of Ac.3-00 of patta land held by him, Ac.2.00 of land was submergedwhen the Lower Manair Dam was constructed. In these set of circumstances, hehas applied for assignment of land in his favour. The application wasconsidered and he was granted patta over an extent of Ac.2.20 guntas situatedin Survey No.452, Chintakunta in Karimnagar District. Patta was granted by theMandal Revenue Officer on 15-09-1992 and he was put in possession of theland. The writ petitioner asserts that he has brought improvements to the landand made it cultivable by his hard work. At that stage, through the proceedingsdated 14-03-1997, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, has called forthe explanation of the petitioner as to why the assignment patta granted in hisfavour over the land described supra be not cancelled, as the land in question isShikam Poramboke land and the same is not converted in to Ayan and that the District Collector, Karimnagar has not yet passed orders deleting it from theProhibitory Order Book. The writ petitioner has filed his detailed explanationprotesting against the proposed action. The impugned orders have been passedby the Revenue Divisional Officer on 13.05.1997 cancelling the assignmentpatta granted in favour of the writ petitioner. Since the writ petitioner is a freedomfighter, he has been advised to apply afresh for assignment of any other suitableland. The Revenue Divisional Officer would assert that Shikam Porombokelands are prohibited for assignment in terms of orders of the State Governmentcontained in their G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue Department, dated 25-07-1958.Therefore, the entry in the Prohibitory Order Book prohibiting assignment overthe land in question has not been deleted by the District Collector and hence, thegrant of assignment over the land in question in favour of the writ petitioner bythe then Mandal Revenue Officer was considered as irregular.

W.P.No.17134 of 1997:

3. The writ petitioner in this case has asserted that since he is eligible to begranted a patta, being a landless poor person, considering his application, pattawas granted in his favour through the proceedings dated 02.11.1992 over anextent of Ac.0.20 guntas of land situated in Survey No.28, Bommakal village inKarimnagar Mandal. The writ petitioner has also asserted that subsequent to the assignment, the patta mutation was also carried out in the Faisal Patti and thatthe supplementary sethwar was also issued recording the name of the writpetitioner as pattedar. By raising agricultural loan from the Primary AgriculturalCooperative Society at Karimnagar, the writ petitioner has made tremendousimprovements to the land and that he had planted coconut and mango treestherein and brought it into a cultivable standard. The writ petitioner has alsoasserted that he had spent substantial amount to raise a Zink shed therein for his

residential purpose. Therefore, the proposed action of cancellation of the patta inhis favour is resisted by him. This apart, the writ petitioner has specificallyasserted that there is no Ayacut under Raikunta tank and in fact, the DistrictCollector through his Letter No. B2/2468/94, dated 04-02-1997 has taken up thematter with the Commissioner of Land Revenue suggesting that the issue betaken up with the Government for securing the orders of the Government forabandoning the irrigation source situated in Survey No.28 of Shikam Porambokemeasuring Ac.9.08 guntas. He also solicited orders for conversion of Shikaminto Ayan to enable the ultimate allotment of the said land to the Journalists,Teachers Cooperative Housing Society and burial ground for Muslims. Throughletter dated 04-02-1997, the District Collector has noted that the DeputyExecutive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Karimnagar, has inspected the land inquestion and recommended for abandoning the said source inasmuch there isno irrigation work was carried out and there is no Ayacut under this tank anylonger. The District Collector has also recommended that the lands in SurveyNo.28 are hardly at a distance of one kilometer from Karimnagar to Peddapallymain road and the tank in question was breached long back and there is nocultivation carried on in the lands. Thus the District Collector, Karimnagar haslaid out the detailed scheme for the State Government to consider converting theShikam land in to Ayan so that necessary deletion can be carried out in theProhibitory Order Book, which will enable the ultimate assignment of this land infavour of eligible beneficiaries.

4. In the counter affidavit in both the matters, the Revenue Divisional officerwould repeat the assertions found in the impugned order namely that the MandalRevenue Officer, Karimnagar, ought not to have rushed in granting the patta overthe lands in question in favour of the respective petitioners before formal ordersconverting the Shikam land into Ayan are passed by the State Government and the Prohibitory Order Book entries are ordered to be deleted by the DistrictCollector. Beyond that the factual assertions as to the abandonment of theRaikunta tank longtime back and consequently no irrigation and no cultivationactivity being carried on therein is not disputed. It is thus evident that theRevenue Divisional officer had resorted to cancellation of the patta granted infavour of the respective writ petitioners not for any of the reasons such as that thewrit petitioners are not eligible for such grant or that the lands in question arerequired for meeting any other emergent need of the State or that they havebreached the conditions of the grant, but the cancellation had proceeded only onthe ground that the grant itself is premature.

5. Since the respondents have not disputed that the writ petitioners areotherwise eligible to be granted the assignment over the respective lands in theirfavour, the only question that calls for consideration is whether the RevenueDivisional officer should have cancelled the patta granted in favour of the writpetitioners at all even before the State Government has taken a decision in thematter one way or the other. The petitioner in W.P.No.16643 of 1997 isadmittedly a freedom fighter. It is not in dispute that such men are honoured byrecognizing their role and contribution in the freedom movement, by assigning them suitable extents of land. When such men who have been granted theassignment have bonafidely indulged in developing the land and bringing it intocultivable standards, it is hardly appropriate that such assignment should becancelled on some reason or the other, which is not based upon any publicissues of interest. I therefore find it appropriate to direct the State Government totake a decision as to whether the Shikam Poromboke land under the abandonedRaikunta tank should be permitted to be converted in to Ayan and consequentlythe respective lands can be got deleted from the Prohibitory Order Book by theDistrict Collector, Karimagar or not. If there is no irrigation that is carried on in the Shikam land and when the tank itself has been breached and abandoned,perhaps no meaningful purpose can be achieved from continuing to treat theland as Shikam land. But, however, that is a matter which the State Governmentwill have to decide. At this stage, I do not propose to express any opinionthereon but leave it to the State Government to take all relevant factors, includingthe one as was spelt out by the District Collector, Karimnagar, in his Letter No.B2/2468/94, dated 04-02-1997 addressed to the Commissioner of LandRevenue, in to consideration and take an appropriate decision. Based thereonthe necessary consequential action can be initiated. Till such time, the StateGovernment takes a decision, the respondents shall not seek to evict the writpetitioners from out of the lands assigned to them. In the event that the StateGovernment takes a decision in the matter, which might be at conflict with theinterests of the writ petitioners, an opportunity may be provided to the writpetitioners before orders of eviction can be passed against them. I thereforedispose of both the writ petitions in terms as indicated supra. The writ petitionersare at liberty to supplement their submissions by producing the necessarymaterial before the Government to enable it to arrive at a correct conclusion inthe matter.

6. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

_________________________

NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J

28-12-2006