WP/19036/1995 of SUNKARI LAXMI BAI Vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR on 30 December 2004

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents herein not todispossess the petitioners from their respective agricultural lands ie.,(1) agriculturalland to the extent of 5 acres situated in S.No.72/40 of petitioner no.1, (2) agriculturalland to the extent of 5 acres 5 guntas situated in S.No.72/36 of petitioner No.2 atBatti Sawargaon village, Mandal, Adilabad District and also to declare theproceedings of the 2[nd] respondent herein vide proc.no.c/222/90, dt 23/5/1994 asillegal, and arbitrary.

The brief contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows:It is stated that that the 1[st] petitioner purchased the agricultural land to a total extentof Ac.5.00 situated in Sy.No.72/40 of Batti Sawargaon village from one Kistanna on11-02-1973 under a written sale deed and is in exclusive possession of the same,but due to illiteracy he could not get it registered. The 2[nd] petitioner is the absoluteowner and exclusive possessor of the agricultural land to the total extent of 5 acresand 5 guntas situated in Sy.No. 72/36 and about 35 years back the same was beingassigned to the 2[nd] petitioner by the respondents and since then the 2[nd] petitioner iscontinuously in possession and cultivating said lands which also reflect in thepahani patrikas issued by the 3[rd] respondent herein and also by paying the taxes. Itis also stated that though the 1[st] petitioner made several representations formutation in revenue record, the 3[rd] respondent did not give any reply. The 2[nd]petitioner though did not contravene any assignment rules, the respondents havecancelled the assignments, without following due process of law and without givingany notice to the petitioners.

It is the further case of the petitioners that on 15-8-1995 the 2[nd] respondent issuedproceedings No. G/2702/95, directing the Mandal Revenue Inspectors to prepare theland from Sy.No.72/11 for the purpose of house sites to the weaker sections. Whenthe Revenue people tried to enter into the lands of the petitioners, they objected forthe same. Later, the petitioners came to know, on enquiry, that the 3[rd] respondentresumed their lands through his proceedings No. C/2229/90, dt. 23.5.1994, for whichthey were not served with any notices. As such the proceedings of the 3[rd]

respondent dt. 23-5-1995, without giving any prior notice to the petitioners, iscontrary to the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,1977 and hence the said proceedings are liable to be quashed. It is further statedthat under the guise of the above orders of the 1[st] respondent, the deputed MandalRevenue Inspectors are illegally entering into their lands and putting stones hereand there and causing damages to the well grown crops on the land. Hence, the writpetition.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that an extent ofAc 5.00 cents of Government land in Sy.No. 72/40 of Sawargaon village wasassigned in favour of Kisthanna in the year 1969 and it was in his occupation up to1972 and thereafter the said land is in occupation and possession of the firstpetitioner herein by way of purchase but the original assignee is still continued aspattedar in revenue records and the first petitioner is shown as cultivator up to 1990and thereafter the land was kept fallow. It is further stated that under the proceedingsof the 3[rd] respondent 23-5-1994 the said land was resumed under the GovernmentCustody under a cover of Panchanama, dated 27-5-1994 as it was a clear case ofviolation of conditions of assignment. The land was resumed only on violation ofcondition of assignment by way of selling the assigned lands and keeping the landsfallow but not on the ground of distribution of house site pattas and that theGovernment has liberty to utilize its land for public purpose for which the petitionercannot question.

It is further stated that an extent of 5.00 Acs of land in Sy.No. 72/36 of Sawargaonvillage was assigned in favour of 2[nd] petitioner in the year 1968 in terms ofGOMs.No.1406 of 1958 and he cultivated the same till 1990 and thereafter keptfallow the land and as such it became clear violation of the conditions of theassignment rules and hence the 3[rd] respondent through his proceedings dated 27-5-1994 ordered for resumption of the said land and kept into Government custodyunder cover of Panchanama. It is further stated that a Division Bench of this Court inits judgment dated 08-8-1980 in W.P.No.2500/78 held that the provisions of theSec.3 of the Act 9 of 1977 (Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands(Prohibition of TransferAct,),1977) shall have retrospective effect not only assignments but also transfersmade prior to the commencement of the said Act and hence the purchase ofassigned land by the writ petitioners is void and violative of the conditions ofAssignment. Since the lands in question are not acquired, the question of payment of any compensation does not arise. It is also stated that since these lands areassigned lands, according to assignment rules, the original assignees or theirsuccessors should have to cultivate the land assigned to them, but, contrary to theconditions of the assignment rules, the original assignees sold away these landsand kept fallow without cultivation. Hence, the respondents sought for dismissal ofthe writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

I have perused the material available on record. As could be seen from the rivalcontentions, the lands in question are the assigned lands and subsequently, theywere kept fallow. According to the respondents, keeping of the assigned landsfallow, amounts to violation of the conditions of agreement. On account of that, thesaid lands were resumed and if that being the case, the action of the respondents inresuming the said assigned lands on the ground of violation of the conditions thereindoes not amount to acquisition of lands.

It is also seen from the rival contentions that the land in question was in the firstinstance assigned to one Kistanna and subsequently, it was sold to the 1[st]petitioner. In this regard, it is relevant to note that a Division Bench of this Court hasmade it clear while disposing of a writ petition in W.P.No:2500 of 1978 that theprovisions of section 3 of the Act 9 of 1977 (A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition ofTransfer Act, 1977) shall have retrospective effect not only in respect of assignmentsbut also in respect of transfers made prior to the commencement of the said Act andhence the purchase of assigned land by the writ petitioners, is void and violative ofconditions of assignment.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the principles laid down bya Division Bench of this Court in respect of the assignment lands, I am of the viewthat the claim made by the petitioners that their lands are going to be acquiredwithout following any due process of law, holds no water and accordingly, I see nomerits in this writ petition.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

___________________

(T. MEENA KUMARI, J)

Kvrk

To

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ADILABAD

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADILABAD

3 THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER , ADILABAD

4 Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)

5 Two CD copies.