WP/16387/1997 of Jagga Narasimhulu Vs The Joint Collector, on 22 December 2006

Conclusion

Order:

This Writ Petition has been instituted calling inquestion the validity of the orders passed by the firstrespondent-Joint Collector & Additional DistrictMagistrate, Ananthapur District, on 16-06-1997,cancelling the patta of assignment made in favour of one Jagga Babaiah, grand father of the writ petitioner,on 30[th] April, 1951, in respect of an extent of Ac.0.20cents of land situated in Survey No.201-5 ofPenukonda town in Anantapur District.

It is not in dispute that one Sri Jagga Babaiah,Son of Jagga Lakshmaiah, with a view to establish aPetrol and Kerosene storage facility, has obtainedagency from the Burmashell Company and thenapproached the Revenue Administration solicitingassignment of land in his favour. Considering thesignificance of the public purpose that would beserved by such a facility, the District RevenueAdministration has taken a decision on 27[th] July,1950 to assign the land admeasuring Ac.0.20 centssituated in Survey No.201-5 of Penukonda Villagesubject to the payment of market value of Rs.300/- forthe land and the tree value of sunkesari tree andground rent at Rs.0-2-0 (2 anas) per cent. Onrealizing the said value, a formal patta has beengranted in favour of Jagga Babaiah through the proceedings dated 30-04-1951 of the then Tahsildar, Penukonda. But however,during November, 1990, the third respondent-MandalRevenue Officer, Penukonda, seems to have filed areport that the land in question was no longer been put to use for storage of Kerosene or Petrol and thatthe conditions of the grant have been violated and,therefore, the grant itself deserves to be set asideand the land in question needs to be resumed by theGovernment. The said report was also endorsed bythe second respondent-Revenue Divisional officer inJanuary, 1991. Based upon these adverse reports,the first respondent-Joint Collector has initiated actionin the matter and passed the impugned order on 16-06-1997 duly cancelling the patta granted in favour oflate Jagga Babaiah.

It is baffling to note as to why a grant, which hasbeen made as on 30-04-1951, should be attempted tobe cancelled after four decades on the ground that itis presently not being put to the same use for whichthe original grant came to be made. It is equallybaffling to note as to how an attempt could be madeto retrieve the possession of this 0.20 cents of landfrom the legal heirs of the original grantee viz., JaggaBabaiah even after realizing the entire land valueincluding that of the value of the trees standing on theland in question. So far as the cancellation ofassignment of lands on realizing its market value isconcerned, the said issue has been considered by aDivision Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in Nimmagadda Rama Devi vs. The DistrictCollector, Krishna at Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam & Anr.[[1]] In the said judgment, the provisions of theA.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act,1977 (Act IX of 1977) have been analyzed and it washeld that the lands, which have been assignedsubject to the condition of payment of market value,are not liable to be cancelled at a later point of timeby invoking the provisions of Act IX of 1977. It will beuseful to extract what the Division Bench has pointedout in Para 7 of its judgment:

“By reading the above provisions, it isapparently clear that the scheme of theAct is to prohibit alienation of assignedlands except those on payment of marketvalue because the whole idea of the Act isto make free gift of the lands to thelandless poor persons whereas the landswere originally assigned to the assigneesas per G.O.Ms.NO.1142 dated 1.6.1954on payment of market value underunavoidable circumstances. Further thedefinition of ‘assigned land’ makes it clearthat lands assigned to the landless poorpersons under the rules for the time being-in force, subject to the condition of nonalienation and includes lands allotted ortransferred to landless poor personsunder the relevant law for the time being inforce relating to land ceilings, and theword ‘assigned’shall be construedaccordingly.From the above, it has to beconstrued that if there is a condition of -nonalienation while assigning the landsor the land is assigned under theprovisions of the Andhra Pradesh LandReforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings)Act, 1973, then only it is deemed asassigned and under Act No.IX of 1977.Inthe case on hand, here is no conditionbarring alienation of lands.On the otherhand the note appended to ConditionNo.1 of ‘D’ form patta specifically says that“ this condition will not apply to cases ofassignment made on collection of marketvalue under part 1(8) of G.O.Ms.No.1142”of 18-6-1954.By that condition, it isevident that there is no bar for alienationof lands.Therefore, it cannot be said thatthe lands are assigned lands.When thelands are not assigned lands, the ArtNo.IX of 1977 has no applicability to theassignments made to the assignees.InRAVURI TULISAMMA V.MANDAL

[2]REVENUE OFFICERa learned singleJudge of this Court held that cancellationof assignment of land and grant of “D”form patta on receiving consideration, onthe ground of alienation, is illegal.’

It is therefore, crystal clear that the grant madein favour of Sri Jagga Babaiah on 30[th] April, 1951upon payment of market value is not liable to becancelled subsequently treating the same as a simpleand pure grant of the State by way of an assignment. By realization of the market value, obviously, thenature of the title to the said land changes and it loses the status of a grant inasmuch as the whole titlepasses on to the person from whom the market valuehas been realized. There is essentially change oftitle over the piece of land, which was the subjectmatter of grant to begin with. Thus, the title to theland in question had been passed on completely infavour of deceased Jagga Babaiah as the marketvalue of the land in question has been realized fromhim.

Even otherwise, it is not in dispute that the landin question has been put to use initially for thepurpose of storage of Petroleum and Kerosene. It isquite possible that the said business, as asserted bythe writ petitioner, may be carrying on still or it maynot have been carried on at all. That is a disputedquestion of fact. The Revenue Administration shouldhave taken care to verify as to whether the license infavour of the present writ petitioner for storing andcarrying on the sale of Kerosene, Petroleum orPetroleum products is subsisting or not. No suchattempt has been made. Therefore, the conclusiondrawn by the Revenue Administration, that the land inquestion was not being put to use as is conceived bythe original grant, only on the ground that the shederected thereon is found to be locked at all times and

that there were no traces of any storage operationsbeing carried on there, is misconceived. I am afraidthat such aspects of the matter cannot form a fair or areasonable basis to come to a conclusion that theactivity of storage of Petroleum or Kerosene is notbeing carried on in the said premises. Somethingmore realistic ought to have formed basis of such aconclusion.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petitiondeserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and theorder passed by the first respondent inRc.No.A10/13030/90 dated 16-06-1997 is herebyquashed, but however, without costs.

_________________________

(Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J)

22ndDecember, 2006LUR

[1]1996 (2) Law Summary 3251996 (2) Law Summary 325

[2]1991 (1) An.W.R. 5331991 (1) An.W.R. 533