WP/16360/1997 of M.Mallikharjuna Rao, Vs The Joint Collector, on 22 December 2006

Conclusion

Order:

This Writ Petition has been instituted seekingdirections to the respondents not to evict the writpetitioner from the lands in Survey No.239 situated atTekulapalli Village, Hamlet of Bethampudi in Tekulapalli Mandal of Khammam District.

The Writ Petitioner has asserted that he is amember belonging to the backward class and formermember of a Naxalite group, and presently, he gaveup the said path and joined the mainstream of thesociety. The writ petitioner has asserted that after thedemise of his father, he had been cultivating the landsituated in Survey No.239 of Tekulapalli Village,which land, was under occupation and cultivation ofhis father for a very long time. When the writpetitioner has approached the third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Tekulapalli seekingassignment of this particular piece of land in hisfavour, the same was rejected on 15-10-1996. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner preferredan appeal before the second respondent-RevenueDivisional Officer, Kothagudem and the same wasalso turned down on 19[th]The writ May, 1997. petitioner would further assert that he had preferred arevision before the first respondent-Joint Collector,Khammam against the orders passed by the secondrespondent-Revenue Divisional Officer and that thesaid proceedings are still pending.

The entire case centers around the claim of the writ petitioner that the State Government hasannounced its policy decision through G.O.Ms.No.41Revenue (B) Department, dated 12-01-1971 orderingthat the Non-Tribal Sivaijamadars, who were inoccupation of the Government lands in scheduledareas for a period of not less than ten years, shouldnot be evicted from such lands and in case the claimsof Tribal applicants are required to be considered forassigning the lands, any other suitable land in thesame village or in the neighbouring village beassigned instead of dispossessing such Non-TribalSivaijamadars.

The first respondent-Joint Collector, Khammam,had filed his counter-affidavit in the matter. Thefactual possession regarding the social status of thewrit petitioner was not disputed. It is also notdisputed that the writ petitioner was one of thesurrendered naxalites. It was further not disputedthat the father of the writ petitioner Sri Kanakaiah wasin occupation of an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of land inSurvey No.239 situated at Tekulapalli, Hamlet ofBethapudi Village and that after the demise ofKanakaiah, the writ petitioner was in possession ofthe land from 1967-68 to 1978-79. The counter-affidavit would allege that beyond 1978-79, there is no recorded evidence available toshow that the petitioner is continuing in possession ofthe said land.

It was asserted in the counter-affidavit that outof Ac.5.00 cents of land in possession of thewrit petitioner, over an extent of Ac.2.02 guntas ofland, 50 scheduled tribe candidates have beengranted house sites during the year 1994. Thecounter-affidavit does not dispute that the StateGovernment’s Policy decision announced throughG.O.Ms.No.41, dated 12-01-1971 was holding thefield. But however, the stand taken by therespondents is that a Sivaijamadar may not beevicted from out of the lands situated in scheduledareas, only if he is in possession of such lands fromthe year 1961 inasmuch as the State Government’sPolicy decision ordering that the Non-TribalSivaijamadars, who were in occupation of theGovernment lands in scheduled areas for a period ofnot less than ten years, should not be evicted fromsuch lands, was announced in January, 1971. Sincethe writ petitioner was found to be in possession ofthe lands in question only from 1967, the writpetitioner is not entitled for extension of the benefit ofthe policy decision of the State Government contained in G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 12-01-1971.

The learned Government Pleader forAssignment, while making her submissions, has alsosupplemented with reference to the record that thethird respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Tekulapallihad retrieved the possession of the lands in questionfrom the writ petitioner on 31-10-1996 under a coverof panchanama. It is also suggested that thestanding crop over an extent of Ac.3.10 guntas ofland estimated to the value approximately atRs.2,000/- has also been taken into possession.

This Writ Petition depicts impropercomprehension of various beneficial schemescontemplated and put in place by the StateGovernment. The State Government on review andreconsideration of the policy with regard to eviction ofNon-Tribal candidates, who have occupiedGovernment lands situated in scheduled areas, hasannounced its policy decision through G.O.Ms.No.41,dated 12-01-1971, a reference to which has alreadybeen made supra. The decision announced by theState Government in the aforementioned GO was inmodification of its earlier policy announced throughG.O.Ms.No.971 Revenue (B) Department, dated 07-10-1969. Through this decision contained in G.O.Ms.No.971, dated 07-10-1969, the State Government had prohibitedassignment of Government lands in the scheduledareas in favour of

Non-Tribals. But however, in cases where theGovernment lands in the scheduled areas have beenencroached upon by Non-Tribal candidates, it hasbeen proposed to straight away evict the personsother than landless poor persons. So far as thelandless poor persons are concerned, they shall notbe evicted from the lands under their occupation upto a maximum extent of 2 ½ acres of wet land and 5acres of dry land unless and until such lands areneeded for assignment to Tribals. This policy relatingto the eviction of Non-Tribal landless poorSivaijamadars from out of the Government lands wasreviewed and modified by the State Government in itsdecision contained in GO.Ms.No.41, dated 12-01-1971. As per this policy decision, Non-Tribal landlesspoor Sivaijamadars in occupation of Governmentlands in scheduled areas should not be evicted fromthe lands in their occupation, if they are in occupationof those lands for a period of not less than 10 years.

Thus, the policy of the State Government asannounced through G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 12-01-1971

does not lay down that the Non-Tribal landless poorSivaijamadars should be in occupation of theGovernment lands situated in scheduled areas from1961 onwards to secure the benefit of the policycontained in G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 12-01-1971. Allthat it would say is that, if a Non-Tribal landless poorSivaijamadar, is in occupation of the GovernmentLand for a period of not less than 10 years, he shallnot be evicted from such lands.

In the instant case, it is admitted by therespondents that either the writ petitioner or his fatherwere found to be in possession of the lands inquestion from 1967-68 to 1978-79, which period itselfworks out to more than 10 years duration.

In the face of this fact, as was asserted in thecounter-affidavit filed by the respondent no.1, it isincomprehensible as to how the writ petitioner cannottake advantage of the policy of the State Governmentcontained in G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 12-01-1971. It isobvious that the Revenue Administration at theDistrict Level has also misconstrued the scope andcontext of the policy decision of the StateGovernment contained in G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 12-01-1971 or deliberately acted in contravention thereof. Ifthe policy of the State Government is not to evict the Non-Tribal landless poor Sivaijamadars from out ofthe lands in their occupation for a period of 10 yearsor more, the writ petitioner is entitled to hang on to hispossession and protect the same. It is not the caseof the Revenue Administration of the State that thewrit petitioner is in possession of any other land andconsequently, he is disentitled to hang on to hispossession over the land in question. The writpetitioner’s assertion that he was a former naxalite,who gave up the said path, and is making efforts tojoin the main stream of the society, has not beendisputed.

It, therefore, calls for consideration of the StateRevenue Administration as to whether the land inquestion can be assigned in favour of the writpetitioner at all or not. Assigning the land in favour ofthe writ petitioner is altogether a different componentof the controversy. The State Government’s policydecision of rehabilitation of the former naxalites is theaspect, which, perhaps, is required to be consideredin that regard. But, in so far as the policy decision ofthe State Government contained in G.O.Ms.No.41dated 12-01-1971 is concerned, it prevents eviction oflandless poor Non-Tribal Sivaijamadars in occupationof the Government lands situated in scheduledareas. Thus, eviction of such candidates is altogether a different aspect of the matter.

For the failure of the Revenue administration toappreciate the distinction, width and scope of thepolicy decision contained in G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 12-01-1971, I consider it appropriate to direct the RevenueAdministration to restore possession of the land infavour of the writ petitioner.

In the normal circumstances, I would haveasked for restoration of the possession in favour ofthe writ petitioner over the very same land, but, forthe fact that it was asserted in the counter-affidavitthat 50 landless Tribal candidates have been grantedhouse site pattas over an extent of Ac.2.02 guntasfrom out of the lands in question, I direct the firstrespondent-Joint Collector, Khammam to supervisehanding over of the possession of the balance landavailable in Survey No.239 of Tekulapalli Villageforthwith to the writ petitioner. If the RevenueAdministration comes to the conclusion thatrestoration of possession of balance land situated inRevenue Sy.No.239 of Tekulapalli village is notfeasible due to further developments, if any, theymust put the writ petitioner in possession of an equalextent of Ac.5.00 of land situated anywhere in Tekulapalli village or any other neighbouring villageforthwith, at any rate, within a month’s time from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order.

However, it is made clear that if the enquiryconducted by the Revenue Administration revealsthat the writ petitioner does not answer thedescription of a ‘landless poor person’ and if he is inpossession of other lands beyond the limits foranswering the description of ‘landless poor person’,he may not be entitled for restoration of the land insuch a case. The orders in this regard becommunicated to the petitioner.

Since the learned Government Pleader has fairlybrought to my notice that the then Mandal RevenueOfficer has taken possession of a standing cropvalued by him to be of Rs.2,000/- as on 31[st] October,1996, the respondents shall pay this value forthwithto the writ petitioner, if not already paid by them.

Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Nocosts.

_________________________

(Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J)22ndDecember, 2006LUR