Allowed

A.Kamalamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Prl. Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Nov 2022WP/32217/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed this Writ Petition declaring the revenue authorities' order resuming land illegal. The impugned order was set aside because the compulsory Form-I notice under Rule 3 was issued in the name of the deceased original assignee rather than his legal heirs, violating mandatory procedural requirements.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.06.2017 (Rc.B.122/2017) restoring the land to the 5th respondent is set aside. Authorities are directed to follow Rule 3 strictly in future.

A.Kamalamma Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.32217 of 2017

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶5

of India, seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“….to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the 4th respondent in Proceedings in Rc.B.122/2017 dated 15.06.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principal of natural justice and consequently set aside the same …”

¶7

The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that the land admeasuring Ac.4.86 cents in Survey Number 836 of Molakalapoondla Village was assigned in favour of Pacha Siddaiah Naidu under D-Form patta in the year, 1979 vide FDS No.681/1979. The said Siddaiah Naidu married one Krishnamma. The 5^th respondent is their daughter. One Adusumalli Venkataswami Naidu is maternal uncle of Siddaiah Naidu.

¶8

The legal heirs of Adusumalli Venktaswami Naidu namely Rajaiah and Ragaiah got Ac.1.00 and Ac.2.86 cents of land respectively in survey No.836 and the wife of Siddaiah Naidu got Ac.1.00 cents of land in the partition of the Joint Family properties including the land in an extent of Ac.4.86 cents covered by Survey No.836 and since then they are in possession

¶9

¶10

and enjoyment of the above lands having been issued pattadhar passbooks and title deeds in their favour.

¶11

While so, after the death of her mother, the 5^th respondent, she filed O.S.No.74 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, against A.Rajaiah and A.Ragaiah, for delivery of possession of land in their possession in Survey No.836 and that suit was dismissed for default.

¶12

While the matter being so, when the respondents tried to dispossess the petitioner from her land, she came to know that the 4^th respondent issued impugned proceedings vide Rc.B.122/2017 dated 15.06.2017 restoring the entire land in an extent of Ac.4.86 in Survey No.836, directing the Mandal Revenue Inspector to deliver possession of land.

¶13

Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to the 4^th respondent to furnish copy of the proceedings, but the 4^th respondent instead of furnishing a copy of impugned proceedings, issued a notice in the name of husband of the petitioner on 07.11.2016, who died on 15.10.2014.

¶14

The 4^th respondent filed counter contending interalia that originally the subject land was assigned to one Pachha Siddaiah Naidu vide F.Dis.No.681/979, but the same were in possession and enjoyment of one Adusumalli Rajaiah and

¶15

¶16

Adusumalli Ragaiah and further stated that the Government land assigned to landless poor, prohibits transfer of the same by way of Sale, Gift, transfer under Section 4(3) of A.P.Assigned(POT) Act, 1977 amended there-on. The then, Tahsildar initiated action under A.P. Assignment Lands(Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 and resumed the land to Government and handed over the same to the 5^th respondent who is legal heir of original assignee of Pachha Siddaiah Naidu. While issuing notice the concerned authorities followed the procedure and the petitioner by managing the things entered her name in revenue records and obtained pattadhar pass book even though she is not having any valid document to prove right and title over the land.

¶17

The 5^th respondent also filed counter contending that the Adusumalli Venkataswami Naidu, Rajaiah and Ragaiah, are not the family members of Pacha Siddaiah Naidu and no partition took place between them as they did not constitute one family. On verification by the Revenue authorities as Adusumalli Ragaiah and Adusumalli Rajaiah are not the legal heirs of Siddaiah, the respondents issued notice calling for explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, in form-11 under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands(Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 2007, to the enjoyer i.e., husband of

¶18

¶19

petitioner as well as to the 5^th respondent, who is the legal heir of original assignee. The mother of the 5^th respondent also executed a Will on 28.02.2011 bequeathing the subject lands in favour of 5^th respondent. After lapse of stipulated time as there is no explanation from the enjoyer, the 2^nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings directing the Mandal Revenue Officer, to deliver the possession of the land in question to the 5^th respondent.

¶20

When this Writ Petition came for admission, this Court

¶21

has passed an Interim Order on 21.09.2017, which is as follows:

¶22

„ Prima facie as notice was issued to a dead person, even though the name of the petitioner is not reflected in the revenue records, balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner.

¶23

Hence, there shall be interim suspension as prayed for‟ .

¶24

Heard Sri.P.Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for Respondents No.1 to 4 and of Sri.Y.Thejendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for 5^th respondent.

¶25

Rule 3 of A.P.Assigned Lands(Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 2007, which deals with the procedure for eviction of the transferee and taking possession and restoration of assigned lands, reads as follows:

¶26

¶27

‘T he District Collector or the Authorized Officer shall, before taking action under clauses(a) and (b) of Sub-Section(1) of Sections 4 of the Act, issue notices in Form-1 and Form-II to the persons who have transferred and also to the persons who have acquired any assigned land in contravention of the provisions of Sub-Section(2) of Section 3 of the Act.

¶28

The notices shall be served by delivering a copy on transferor and transferee or some adult male member of the family of such transferor or transferee at their usual place of abode or to their authorized agent or by affixing a copy thereof at some conspicuous place of their last known place of residence or on some conspicuous part of the assigned land. After the expiry of fifteen(15) days, specified in the notice, the District Collector or the Authorized Officer shall consider the representation, if any, received with reference to the said notice and pass such orders as he thinks fit and proper. If it is held that the provisions of Sub-Section(1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Act, have been contravened in respect of any assigned land, a copy of the order shall be communicated to the Village Officer concerned under whose territorial jurisdiction the land is situated for taking possession of the land and thereupon the land shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act‟.

¶29

It is evident from the record that the husband of the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands, having been issued pattadhar pass books and title deeds in his favour and the same was not disputed by the respondents herein. The only controversy in this Writ Petition is that, Form-I notice was issued on 07.11.2016, in the name of the husband of the petitioner who died on 15.10.2014. Therefore, the notice allegedly issued in the name of original assignee is not proper, as he died on 15.10.2014 and the question of issuing notice in his name does not arise and at best, the respondents may service notice on the legal heirs of the deceased original

¶30

¶31

assignee. But, no such procedure is resorted to by the respondents for service of notice, as mandated under Rule 3 of A.P.Assigned Lands(Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 2007.

¶32

Therefore, in pursuance of service of notice on the original assignee, who is no more, resuming the land of the petitioner vide impugned orders of the 4^th respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the impugned order is in violation of Rule 3 of A.P.Assigned Lands(Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 2007Act, consequently, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶33

In the result, Writ Petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned proceedings issued by the 4^th respondent vide Rc.B.122/2017 dated 15.06.2017. However, this order will not preclude the respondents-authorities to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 3 of A.P.Assigned Lands(Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 2007, strictly and take appropriate action, if really there is a violation of condition of patta by the original assignees or their legal heirs. No costs.

¶34

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶35

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶36

Date : 02.11.2022 AVTP

¶37

¶38

180

¶39

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶40

WRIT PETITION No.32217 of 2017

¶41

Date : 02.11.2022

¶42

AVTP

¶43

A.Kamalamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Prl. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Kamalamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Prl. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Ramudu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.R. Ranga Reddy, Anantapur Dist., and 4 Otrs. Vs the State of a.P.,L.a.,Hyd.,and 2 Otrs.

K. Hanamantharaju, Anantapuram Dist Vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

Viswanadhapalli Nallaiah Vs the State of Ap

Devineni Gopi, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the R.D.O

Danala Srinivasulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.