Allowed

Dandamudi Venkateswara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Feb 2020WP/2529/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the respondents attempt to reclassify tank bund land as agricultural to grant house sites to landless poor under a government scheme, violating property rights and environmental provisions.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the action of respondents in changing physical features of the land is illegal; direction not to assign the land in S.No.882 to landless poor under any scheme.

Dandamudi Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.2529 of 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the action of respondents 3 and 4 in trying to change the physical features of common thrashing ground i.e., part of tank bund, an extent of Ac.2-70 cents in Rs.No.882, situated in Tadepalli Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to Section 96 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Rules 3(ii)(iii) of A.P.Panchayat (Protection of Property) Rules, 2011 and consequently direct the respondents not to issue patta for the subject land.

¶4

The main contention of the petitioner is that he is the owner of agricultural land in an extent of Ac.1-87 cents in Rs.No.890-1A, Ac.1-95 cents in Rs.No.890-1B and Ac.0-91 cents in Rs.No.881-3B, in total an extent of Ac.4-73 cents, situated in Tadepalli village, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. This petitioner being a neighbouring farmer to the tank using the tank bund as thrashing floor, Hayrick yard, and tethering cattle etc., and for other allied agricultural purposes adjacent to the pathway and the other farmers who are having land adjacent to bund as passage. While the matter stood thus, the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners and

¶5

¶6

grant house site pattas to some landless poor under the scheme “ Navaratnamulu-Pedalandariki Illu ” without following any procedure. Thus, the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in trying to change the physical features of subject land is illegal and pass an appropriate order.

¶7

During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the petition, whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, fairly conceded the G.O.Ms.No.510, Revenue (Lands-I), Department, dated 30.12.2019, instructions are issued to the District Collector not to identify the communal lands for assignment of house sites to the landless poor and requested to pass an appropriate order.

¶8

As seen from the material on record, the petitioners are the owners of land of different extent mentioned above and the land in S.No.882 of to extent of Ac.2-70 cents for fasli No.1429 is classified as ‘Cheruvu Gattu’ (tank and tank bund) and the FMB also disclose that the land in S.No.882 is classified as ‘Battdi Kunta’. Therefore, the land in dispute is tank-bund, the same cannot be identified for assignment to the landless poor under the scheme “ Navaratnamulu-Pedalandariki Illu” , in terms of G.O.Ms.No.510, dated 30.12.2019.

¶9

Such land cannot be utilized for housing purpose in view of law declared in Intellectual Forum, Tirupati Vs. State of

¶10

¶11

Andhra Pradesh¹ since it is violative of Articles 48-A and 51A(g)of Constitution of India.

¶12

When the land is tank and tank bund, the same cannot be converted into a Government land in terms of B.S.O 15(2), except by leaving one `chain which is equivalent to 100 links or equal to 66’ (sixty six feet), by following necessary procedure i.e., issuing A-1 notice calling for objections from the Panchayath, but no such action has been taken till date. In that view of the matter, the tank and tank bund are deemed to have been vested on the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat will have control over those properties in view of Section 53 of the Panchayat Raj Act and unless it is denotified by publication in the official Gazette in terms of Section 58(2) of the of the Panchayat Raj Act to the extent permissible as per BSO 15(2), it will not be divested from the Gram Panchayat to vest on the Government and no such procedure is followed. Therefore, the proposed action of the respondents in trying to change the physical features of subject land in S.No.882 situated in Tadepalli Village, tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District, and allotting the same to the landless poor which is classified as tank and tank bund, is illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

In view of my foregoing discussion, the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in trying to change the physical features of

¶14

1 (AIR 2006 SC 1350)

¶15

¶16

the subject land is declared as illegal and directed the respondents not to assign the subject land classified as tank and tank bund in Rs.No.882, situated at Tadepalli village, Tadepalli Mandal, West Godavari District by granting assignment to the landless poor under any scheme.

¶17

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶18

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶19

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶20

Dated 10.02.2020 KA

¶21

Dandamudi Venkateswara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dandamudi Venkateswara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahal Babajan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Dasari Appayamma, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

Yaganti Mallikarjuna Rao, Vs the State of Ap

Kondeti Rama Krishna Vs The State of andhra Pradesh

Pedagamatta Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

.Kadali Venkateswarao Vs State of Ap