A Siddhamma Vs the Government of Ap

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 25.06.2025 in W.P.No. 9254 of 2014 and the same and pass

¶11

Between:

¶12

A SIDDHAMMA, D/O.CHINNABBA, CHINTHALAPALEM VILLAGE, PALLAM POST, YERPEDU MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶13

...APPELLANT

¶14

AND

¶15

THE GOVERNMENT OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE, SECRETARIAT HYDERABAD.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD.

¶17

THE JOINT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR.

¶18

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATI.

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR, YERPEDU MANDAL, YERPEDU, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

2

¶22

RNT,J &MRK,J W.A.No.951 of 2025

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

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 To stay all further proceedings pursuant to the order of the learned single judge of this Hon’ble court in Writ Petition vide W.P.No.9254 of 2014, Date.25.06.2025.

¶25

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶26

1.K SARVA BHOUMA RAO

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

3

¶31

RNT,J &MRK,J W.A.No.951 of 2025

¶32

JUDGMENT:- (per Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

¶33

Heard Sri K. Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶34

The writ petitioner in W.P.No.9254 of 2014, which was allowed with certain directions by the learned Single Judge, by Judgment dated 25.06.2025, is the writ appellant herein. The respondents herein are the same respondents as arrayed in the writ petition.

¶35

The petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of land in Sy.No.399/2 of Chinthalapalem Village, vide, DKT patta No.279/4/97, dated 26.06.1988. The said patta was cancelled by the Tahsildar, Yerpedu, in proceedings No.D.Dis.A/374/2007, dated 04.06.2007, on the sole ground that the petitioner had violated two conditions of the patta, namely (i) noncultivation of the assigned land and (ii) not residing in the village.

¶36

Aggrieved by the cancellation order, the petitioner filed O.S.No.336 of 2007 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikalahasthi, which was dismissed on 30.04.2008. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum to challenge the cancellation order. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, which was dismissed on 11.11.2009. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Joint Collector, Chittoor, and the same was also dismissed on 23.03.2010. Against the said order, the petitioner

¶37

4

¶38

RNT,J &MRK,J W.A.No.951 of 2025

¶39

filed a further revision before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (A.P.,). The said Authority after hearing both sides, dismissed the revision on 08.05.2013. Aggrieved by the order of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.9254 of 2014, which was allowed with directions and challenging the same Writ Petitioner herself has filed the writ appeal.

¶40

A perusal of the judgment of the Writ Court makes it evident that the learned Single Judge recorded the finding that the order of cancellation was bad and could not be sustained on both the grounds that, the land was not brought into cultivation and also that the petitioner was not residing in the village.

¶41

However, in view of the fact that, in the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Joint Collector, there was an additional ground mentioned for cancellation, i.e., that, the petitioner’s family was possessing a total land of Ac.14.29 cents in the village, (details were referred to in those orders) as also in view of the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on that count, (evident from Para 3 of the Judgment,) noting that, the said aspect was not considered by the Chief Commissioner, the learned Single Judge, remanded the matter to the Chief Commissioner, only for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether the petitioner’s family members were in possession of an additional Ac.9.00 cents of land (i.e., Ac.5.00 of land assigned plus the patta land so as to calculate

¶42

5

¶43

RNT,J &MRK,J W.A.No.951 of 2025

¶44

total Ac.14.00). The Chief Commissioner was further directed to go into the question as to whether the husband of the petitioner was a medical doctor and his income was sufficient to raise the petitioner above the financial limits which defined land less poor persons.

¶45

The relevant part of directions in judgment dated 25.06.2025 reads as follows:

¶46

“ 7. As far as the question of whether the petitioner’s family owned Ac.14.00 of land at the time of grant of patta and whether the petitioner would qualify as a land less poor person for assignment of land are questions which would remain open even if this Writ Petition is to be allowed.

¶47

8. In such circumstances, keeping in view the fact that this Writ Petition has been pending for the past 11 years, it would be appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition by setting aside the order of the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, dated 08.05.2013 and remanding the matter back to the Chief Commissioner only for the purpose of ascertaining whether the family members of the petitioner were owners and in possession of the aforesaid Ac.9.00 of land (in as much as Ac.5.00 of land assigned and the patta has been included to calculate Ac.14.00). The Chief Commissioner would also go into the question of whether the husband of the petitioner was a medical doctor whose income was sufficient to raise the petitioner above the financial limits which define land less poor persons.

¶48

9. Needless to say, it must also be mentioned that the holding of the assignee at the time of assignment should be taken into account and any subsequent assignment of land

¶49

6

¶50

RNT,J &MRK,J W.A.No.951 of 2025

¶51

cannot be treated to be a disqualification for continuing to hold assigned land. Any such view would run counter to the entire policy of the Government to assist persons below poverty line to raise themselves and to assure a bright future for themselves and for their children.

¶52

10. In view of the long standing dispute, there shall also be a direction to the Chief Commissioner to dispose of the proceedings before him, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶53

Learned counsel for the writ appellant submits that, insofar as the finding of the Writ Court setting aside the order of cancellation is concerned, the same is justified, but the remand on the basis of an additional factor suffers error of law and to that extent there is challenge to the order of the writ Court.

¶54

Learned Counsel for the writ appellant submits that the cancellation of the petitioner’s patta by the Tahsildar was based only on two grounds. The additional ground was not in the order of Tahsildar. He submits that though the said ground was mentioned in the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector, but the basis for such additional ground was neither pleaded nor supported by any material. So, there was no occasion to remand the matter on the basis of the additional ground.

¶55

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the said additional

¶56

ground was clearly mentioned in the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer

¶57

7

¶58

RNT,J &MRK,J W.A.No.951 of 2025

¶59

and the Joint Collector. He further submits that from a perusal of the order of the Chief Commissioner, it is apparent that such a ground was not commented upon by the Chief Commissioner. So, even if the two grounds were found unsustainable by the learned Single Judge, the matter deservedto be rendered for consideration on the additional ground by the Chief Commissioner. Consequently, when that additional ground was brought to the notice of the Writ Court, the matter has rightly been remanded for consideration on that limited aspect. There is no illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶60

Upon consideration of the aforesaid submissions, we find that, apart from the two grounds taken in the order of cancellation passed by the Tahsildar, the additional ground was also mentioned in the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (Para 32) and in the order of the Joint Collector (Para 16), to justify cancellation order. But, the additional ground does not find mention in the order of the Chief Commissioner, though he also dismissed the writ appellant’s revision. The additional ground is also relevant to consider the validity of the cancellation order. The same would materially effect the order of the cancellation either way. So, the matter has rightly been remanded for consideration of the additional grounds. We do not find any illegality in the order under appeal, remanding the matter only to the limited extent.

¶61

We therefore dismiss the writ appeal, but clarifying that the Chief Commissioner, while deciding the matter pursuant to the remand order, shall

¶62

8

¶63

RNT,J &MRK,J W.A.No.951 of 2025

¶64

provide due opportunity of hearing to the writ appellant. At this stage, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that, pursuant to the order of the Writ Court, notice had already been issued to the petitioner to appear before the Chief Commissioner, but the date fixed has already expired. Consequently, we provide further that the Chief Commissioner shall fix another date for hearing, with due notice to the petitioner, and on such date, the petitioner shall appear before the said authority. The proceedings shall be concluded and order shall be passed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶65