WA/1335/2006 of Baswada Sathi Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 December 2006

Conclusion

:: JUDGMENT ::

Counsel for the appellants

Counsel for respondents

Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, SeniorAdvocate for Sri K.R.PrabhakarGovernment Pleader for Revenue(Assignment)

22.12.2006

Per G.S.Singhvi, CJ

This appeal is directed against order dated 8.12.2006 passed bythe learned Single Judge whereby he dismissed the writ petition filedby the appellants for quashing show cause notices dated 22.11.2006issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Toopran Mandal, Medak Districtproposing to resume the lands assigned to them or theirpredecessors.

The appellants are residents of Muppireddipalli, Jeedipalli andKallakal Village of Toopran Mandal, Medak District. They claim to bein possession of the lands in question for the last more than 50 years. Pattas are said to have been issued to the appellants in accordancewith Laoni Rules contained in G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue, dated 26-7-1958 read with G.O.Ms.No.1724, Revenue, dated 26-8-1959, whichwere issued under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) LandRevenue Act, 1317 F (for short, ‘the Act’). In some cases, the pattasare said to have been issued to the predecessors of the appellants. On 22-11-2006, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued notices to theappellants proposing to resume the assigned lands and asked them tosubmit their explanation. The appellants challenged the show causenotices in Writ Petition No.25441 of 2006. The learned Single Judgereferred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Shri Brahma Datta Sarma[[1]], Special Director v. Mohd. GhulamGhouse[[2]], the judgments of this Court in Special Officer, ULC v.M.Vijayalakshmi[[3]],K.Veerabhadrudu v. Special Deputy Collector[[4]], State of A.P. V. P.Peda Chinnayya[[5]], State of A.P. v.Bondapalli Sanyasi[[6]]a n d LAO-cum_RDO, Chevella Division, Hyderabad v. Mekala Pandu[[7]]and held that the writ petition ispremature and accordingly dismissed the same.

Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, Senior Advocate appearing for theappellants invited our attention to the provisions contained in the Actand the policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25.7.1958 andargued that in the absence of express enumeration in the Act and theRules, the Mandal Revenue Officer could not have incorporatedcondition No.12 in the D-Form patta issued in favour of the appellantsand/or their predecessors and, in any case, the same cannot be madebasis for resumption of the land because it amounts to compulsorydeprivation of the property right of the appellants without paying themcompensation. He criticized the order under challenge by arguing thatthe view taken by the learned Single Judge on the maintainability ofthe writ petition is hyper-technical. Learned counsel relied on thedecisions of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. United Motors(India) Ltd.,[[8]], Himmatlal Harilal Mehta v. State of MadhyaPradesh[[9]]and Bengal Immunity Company Ltd., v. State ofBihar[[10]]and argued that the writ petition filed with the compliant ofthreatened violation of the constitutional rights cannot be thrown out aspremature.

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment)supported the order under challenge and argued that the appellantscan have no substantive objection against the proposed resumption ofland because the action is being taken in accordance with theconditions specified in the D-Form patta. On the basis of the instructions given to him by the departmental authorities, the learnedGovernment Pleader also made a statement that if the land of theappellants is resumed, then they will not only be paid compensation,but will also be provided with house-sites and one member of thefamily will be provided employment in the industrial zone to be set upby the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited.

In the context of the statement made by the learned GovernmentPleader, Sri S.Ramachandra Rao lamented that neither an affidavithas been filed nor any such document has been placed before theCourt to show that the appellants will be paid compensation in lieu ofthe resumption of their land.

We have given serious thought to the entire matter. We agreewith the learned Single Judge that the writ petition filed by theappellants was premature. A reading of notice dated 22.11.2006issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer shows that the officerconcerned has simply called upon the appellants to show causeagainst the proposed resumption of land. They could have filed writtenobjections against the proposed action and convinced the officerconcerned that their lands should not be resumed because they do nothave any other source of sustenance. If, after considering theobjections of the petitioners-appellants, the officer concerned hadpassed order for resumption of the land, then the appellants couldavail appropriate legal remedy including the one by seekingintervention of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, without adopting this usual course, the appellants rushed tothis Court and made a grievance against the show cause notice, whichdid not find favour with the learned Single Judge. In our opinion, theview taken by the learned Single Judge on the issue of maintainabilityof the writ petition cannot be termed as erroneous or contrary to the established principles of law.

At this stage, we may mention that D-Form patta certificatesissued in favour of the appellants contained a clear stipulationregarding possible resumption of land without payment ofcompensation. For the sake of convenient reference, condition No.12of D-Form patta certificate issued in favour of appellant No.2 – RodaSailu S/o.Yellaiah is extracted below:

“12. In the event of the land being required for a project orany other public purpose, the land will be resumed and nocompensation shall be paid to the assignee (the decision ofthe Government or other authority empowered by them inthis behalf shall be final on the question whether thepurpose for which the land is to be resumed is a publicpurpose or not.”

Since the action has been initiated against the appellants inaccordance with the condition incorporated in the D-Form patta, we donot find any justification to interfere at the stage of show cause notice.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clearthat if, after considering the objections which may be filed by theappellants within two weeks from today, the officer concerned comesto the conclusion that the land of the appellants should be resumed,then he shall make a specific order on the issue of payment ofcompensation, providing house sites and employment to one memberof the family of the assignee. We also make it clear that this order shallnot preclude the aggrieved person from challenging the order ofresumption by availing appropriate legal remedy.

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ appeal, WAMP No.2830 of2006 filed by the appellants for interim relief is also dismissed.

G.S.SINGHVI, CJ

22.12.2006

psr

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

[1]AIR 1987 SC 943AIR 1987 SC 943

[2] (2000) 3 SCC 440 (2000) 3 SCC 440

[3]1998 (6) ALT 6271998 (6) ALT 627

[4]2000 (1) ALT 4522000 (1) ALT 452

[5]1996 (2) ALD 1215 (FB) = 1997 (1) ALT 498 (FB)1996 (2) ALD 1215 (FB) = 1997 (1) ALT 498 (FB)

[6]2002 (2) ALD 1 (LB) = 2002 (1) ALT 543 (LB)2002 (2) ALD 1 (LB) = 2002 (1) ALT 543 (LB)

[7]2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB)2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB)

[8]1953 SCR 10691953 SCR 1069

[9]1954 SCR 11221954 SCR 1122

[10]1955 (2) SCR 6031955 (2) SCR 603