Dismissed

G Masthanappa v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC29 Jan 2024WA/1067/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh heard a writ appeal challenging a Single Judge's order quashing revenue orders that resumed assigned land. The Single Judge held the revenue orders invalid as they were based on grounds different from the show cause notice and suffered from non-application of mind. The High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed without costs. No interim order was made.

G Masthanappa Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

I 6 y

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV.

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

r
★

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

honourable SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶7

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1067 OF 2023

¶9

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Orders dt.06.01.2023 passed in WP.No.2438 of 2014 on the file of the High Court.

¶10

Between:

¶11

G Masthanappa, s/o G.Obulesu Age. 51 years, Occ. Journalist R/o D.No. 1/554, Chetnepalli, Gooty Municipality, Anantapur^District

¶12

Jana Vijay Kumar, s/o J.Devadanam Age. 42 years, Occ. Journalist R/o D.No.4 /475, Kurnool Road, Gooty Municipality, Anantapur^District

¶13

Tannin Srinivasulu, s/o T.Laxminarayana Age. 57 years, Occ.

¶14

Journalist, R/o H.No.8/527, BC Colony, Gooty, Anantapur^District

¶15

B.Surendra Babu, s/o G.Nagappa Age. 56 years, Occ. Journalist R/o D.No. 1/250, Chetnepalli Gooty Municipality, Anantapur District

¶16

N.Abdul Subhan, s/o N.Dasthagiri Age. 50 years Occ. Journalist R/o H.No.7/453, Near Amruth Theatre Gooty. Anantapur District

¶17

T.Govindarajulu, s/o T.Lakshmanna Age. 49 years, Dec. Journalist R /o H No 9/1087, CPI Colony. Gooty, Anantapur District

¶18

D Ramesh Babu, s/o D.Nagappa Age. 51 years, Occ. Journalist R/o H.No.6/124, Kota Gooty, Anantapur District

¶19

8.\FS\yub Ba.sha, s/o K.Khasim Peera Age. 52 years,^{Occ.JournalistR/o} H.No.8 /557, Main Road, Gooty RS, Anantapur District

¶20

B.Rama Krishna, s/o B.Kondanna Age. 49 years, Occ.^{JournalistR/o} H.No. 10/1051, Cherlopally Colony Gooty, Anantapur^District

¶21

M.Yellappa, s/o M.Mallappa Age. 48 years, Occ. Journalist, R/o H.No.71245, SC Colony Gooty, Anantapur District

¶22

A.Dayanand, s/o A.Mathayya Age. 50 years, Occ. Journalist R/o 10/843, Cherlopally Colony Gooty RS, Anantapur District

¶23

S.Md Rafiq, s/o N.Fakruddin Age. 43 years, Occ. Journalist R/o 10/567, Near Eidgah, Kurnool Rd Gooty, Anantapur District

¶24

H.Peddaiah, s/o H.Kabirdas Age. 47 years, Occ. Journalist R/o H.No. 10/820, Cherlopally Gouty, Anantapur District

¶25

Chand Basha, s/o Moula Age. 52 years, Occ. Journalist R/o H.No.5/275, 0pp. Telephone Exchange Gooty RS, Anantapur^District

¶26

Baskar Reddy, s/o Srinivas Reddy Age. 45 years,^{Occ.JournalistR/o} H.No.8 /408. BC Colony Gooty, Anantapur District

¶27

K.Vishwanth, s/o Venkoba Sharma Age. 50 years,^{Occ.JournalistR/o} D.No.6 /234/A, Kota Gooty, Anantapur District

¶28

...Appellants/Respondents 1 to 17,19 to 22

¶29

AND

¶30

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur^District

¶31

The Joint Collector, , Anantapur District

¶32

The Revenue Divisional Officer,, Anantapur now Guntakal, Anantapur District

¶33

¶34

The Tahsildhar,, Gooty Mandal, Anantapur District

¶35

... Respondents/Respondents

¶36

Smt K.Naga Lakshmi, w/o K.Veeranna Age. 47 years,^{Occ.Cultivation} R/o D.N0.7/33S, Church Road Gooty village and Mandal Anantapur District

¶37

Smt K Nagarathnamma, w/o K Chalapathi Age. 47 years, Occ. Cultivation R/o D.No.7/33A, Church Road Gooty village^and Mandal Anantapur District

¶38

...Respondents/Appellants

¶39

G.Surya Chandra, s/o G.Obulesu (died) Age. 46 years,^{Occ.Journalist} R/o H.No. 1/508, Chetnepalli Gooty Municipality, Anantapur^District

¶40

...Respondent/ Respondent No.18

¶41

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶42

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to Suspend the Operation of^{Ordersdt.06.01.2023} passed in WP.No.2438 of 2014 on the file of Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, in the interest of justice.

¶43

Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRI. N CHANDRA SEKHAR^REDDY

¶44

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶45

Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI P GANGA RAMI^REDDY

¶46

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶47

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶48

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶49

¶50

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶51

WRIT APPEAL No.1067 of 2023

¶52

G. Masthanappa, S/o.G. Obulesu, Age; 51 years, Occ: Journalist, R/o.D.No. 1/554, Chetnepalli, Gooty Municipality Anantapur District and fifteen others.

¶53

... Appellants

¶54

Versus

¶55

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District and six others.

¶56

...Respondents

¶57

Mr. N. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Counsel for the appellants.

¶58

GP for Revenue, Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶59

Mr. P. Ganga Rami Reddy, Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7.

¶60

DATE : 30.01.2024

¶61

PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ:

¶62

The present writ appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.2438 of 2014.

¶63

HCJ a RRR, J W. A. No. 1067 of 2023

¶64

¶65

. ^

¶66

Facts in brief:

¶67

Petitioners were assigned land in survey Nos.724-2^and724-1 to an extent of one acre fifteen cents and one acre fourteen cents respectively in Gooty village vide order dated 28.02.2004.^Ashowcause notice dated 10.06.2008 came to be issued by the Tahsildar, Gooty, in which the petitioners were asked to show cause as to^{whytheassigned} land be not resumed inasmuch as they had violated the^{conditionsofthe} D. Form patta, by selling the said land by laying plots^overthesame.

¶68

The petitioners responded to the show cause notice^inwhichthey asserted that they had in fact brought the land under^cultivation by planting fruit trees and by installing a drip irrigation^system. It was also stated in the reply to the show cause notice that on^{13.01.2008thatsome} persons had set fire to the drip irrigation system^{asalsotothetreesin} regard to which a complaint had been filed with the^{Gootypolicestation.} The petitioners further specifically denied having^{soldthelandinquestion} to any third parties and claimed that the assigned^landwas still in their possession.

¶69

The Tahsildar however by virtue of order dated 25.07.2008,^didnot accept the explanation so rendered and held that since^{thepetitioners}

¶70

HCJ a RRR, J W.A.No.1067 of 2023

¶71

¶72

had not cultivated the land and therefore having violated^{theconditions} ordered the resumption of the land in question.

¶73

An appeal was preferred before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur which too came to be dismissed by virtue^oforderdated 05.08.2009. The appellate authority i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, appears to have obtained a further report from the Tahsildar, Gooty, wherein it was stated that the petitioners i.e., appellants before the RDO had not been residing in the village but in a different village and that they had not cultivated the land in question within three years from the date of assignment.

¶74

It would be worthwhile to reproduce the relevant portion^ofthe order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur,^wherein it was held that :

¶75

“This appeal was taken on file and notices were issued to the appellants through their advocate. The advocate for the appellants appeared and requested to await further report from the Tahsildar, Gooty. The Tahsildar, Gooty in the reference^{4^'’} read above has submitted his further report stating that the appellants are not residing in the village but they are residing at Rayalacheruvu village of Yadiki Mandal. More over the land was not brought into cultivation within 3 years from the date of assignment which is one of the conditions of D.Form. Thus the assignee violated the condition of assignment. I have also personally inspected the land on 07-07-2009 and found no sign of cultivation by the appellants.

¶76

4 HCJ a RRR, J W.A.No.1067 of 2023

¶77

In view of the above I find no reason to interfere with the orders of the Tahsildar, Gooty passed in the reference 3^ read ” above. Accordingly the appeal petition filed is dismissed.

¶78

A revision was then preferred by the petitioners before the Joint Collector, which too came to be dismissed by virtue of order dated 04.01.2014.

¶79

Aggrieved by the orders so passed, the same were challenged before the learned single Judge, who by virtue of judgment^andorder dated 06.01.2023, allowed the writ petition on the ground, firstly, that the order passed by the Tahsildar which was upheld by the appellate and the revisional authorities, was unsustainable in law, inasmuch as the orders had been passed on grounds different from the one on which the show cause notice was based. Secondly, the learned single Judge held that the orders impugned suffered from non application of mind, inasmuch as while the Tahsildar had noted in its order dated 25.7.2008, the contention of the petitioner that trees had been planted on the site and drip irrigation system installed thereupon and further that even a police complaint had been lodged about an incident in which the drip irrigation system and the trees had been set on fire, yet according to the learned single Judge while passing the order impugned, the Tahsildar did not deal with the explanation nor gave any reason for cancellation of the assignment and simply proceeded to hold that the petitioners had not cultivated the land within the prescribed period.

¶80

HCJ & RRR, J W.A.No.1067of 2023

¶81

¶82

Counsel for the appellants would urge that the judgment and order impugned was not sustainable in law inasmuch as the learned single Judge had failed to notice that Revenue Divisional Officer had personally inspected the site in question and then recorded a finding that the land in question had not been brought under cultivation within three years of assignment. Not only this, it was also urged that the land in question had since been assigned to the appellants after its resumption from the petitioners and therefore, the finding recorded by the learned single Judge with regard to the petitioners being in possession was without any basis.

¶83

Counsel for the respondents reiterated the stand as was earlier projected before the learned single Judge.

¶84

¶85

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶86

In the show cause notice it was alleged that the petitioners being the assignees of the land had sold the land in question by laying plots and thus had violated the conditions of the D. Form patta which contained the conditions of the assignment. The order however passed by the Tahsildar dated 25.07.2008, proceeded to resume the land on

¶87

HCJ a RRR, J 6 W.A.No.1067of 2023

¶88

3SS*

¶89

basis that the petitioners had failed to cultivate^the land within three years, which was not what was stated in the show cause^notice.The Revenue Divisional Officer also had proceeded on the same premise and even gone to the extent of stating that the site in question had been personally visited by him wherein he found that the^{landhadnotbeen} cultivated. This order that was further upheld even in the revision petition filed before the Joint Collector.

¶90

In our opinion, the learned single Judge was right^{inholdingthat} the order passed by the Tahsildar which was upheld^{bytheappellateand} revisional authorities was unsustainable, inasmuch^{astheorderofthe} Tahsildar had been based upon a ground which did not^{atallformabasis} in the show cause notice.

¶91

It is settled law that unless the foundation of a case^islaid in the show cause notice, the order passed on a different^{groundwouldbe} unsustainable in law. Reference in this regard can^{bemadetoCommr.} of Customs vs. Toyo Engg. India Limited^ CCE vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.,^ and CCE vs. Champdany Industries^{Limited^.}

¶92

^ (2006) 7 see 592 ^ (2007) 8 see 89

¶93

^ (2009) 9 see 466

¶94

HCJ & RRR, J W.A.No.1067 of 2023

¶95

¶96

¶97

Even otherwise, we would agree with the view expressed by the learned single Judge that the orders impugned did not at all refer to the explanation rendered by the petitioners that they had brought the land under cultivation, planted fruit trees and installed a drip irrigation system which had been damaged and in which regard a case had been registered. Not only this, the learned single Judge went through the final report submitted by the police before the concerned Court and found that there was a complaint lodged in regard to which a closure report had been filed before the Jurisdictional Court on 16.06.2008. The orders impugned, therefore, clearly appear to be suffering from non application of mind.

¶98

Be that as it may, we do not find any reason to interfere with the view expressed by the learned single Judge. The present writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶99

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,