Petitioners challenging eviction from sikkam land argued awaiting reclassification. Court held sikkam lands cannot be assigned but petitioners may apply for alternative agricultural land after eviction with notice.
Direction to give notice before eviction; direction to consider petitioners for assignment of other agricultural land if eligible.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.21364 of 2003
Between:
1 Ajmeera Rana, s/o Somla, aged 52 years,
34 Molusuri Mondaiah, s/o Chandraiah, aged 58 years, All are Agriculturists and residents of Madannapet Village, Narsampet Mandal, Warangal District.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the lands covered by Survey No.34 to an extent of Ac.68.20 situated at Madannapet Village, Narasampet Mandal, Warangal District, without disposing the proposals initiated in the year 1989 for reclassification of the survey No.34 situated at Madannapet village from shikam land to Government land for the purpose of assigning the said land in favour of the petitioners as illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to dispose of the proposals already submitted pursuant to the representations pending consideration in the office of the 3rd respondent for reclassification of the shikam land to Government land at the earliest. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The thirty-four writ petitioners, who are residents of Madannapet Village, Narsampet Mandal, Warangal District, appear to have encroached upon sikkam land (tank bed land) in S.No.34 admeasuring Acs.68.20 and have been cultivating the land. They also made representations starting from 1989 seeking assignment of the land and according to them the lower rung officials inspected the land and recommended for assignment, but the Government has not yet taken a decision. It is their case that respondents 1 to 3 started visiting the place from 25.9.2003 with a view to evict the petitioners. Therefore, they filed the Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to evict them without disposing of the proposals for reclassification of the land submitted by the revenue officials as illegal and arbitrary.
The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the land in S.No.34 is sikkam land and therefore the same cannot be assigned as per Memo No.30307/assn.I (I)2000, dt.23.5.2000 and another Memo No.65961/Assn.I(I) 97-11, dt.8.2.1999 wherein the Government directed all the District Collectors to protect water bodies. It is further stated that when the Government started fencing sikkam land and directed the petitioners to vacate the land, they filed the present Writ Petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the land which is in occupation of the petitioners is sikkam land and that as per existing law, same cannot be assigned to anybody. However, he submits that as the proposals for reclassification are pending before competent authority unless a decision is taken thereon, petitioners cannot be evicted. Learned Assistant Government Pleader refutes the submission and contends that sikkam land cannot be assigned and therefore there is no necessity for considering the proposal for reclassification.
In the admitted facts position and having regard to law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi as well as decision of this Court in The Water Users’ Association, Thimmayyagaripalli v. Government of A.P. (W.P.No.20323 of 2000 dated 6.2.2002) tank bed lands or sikkam lands cannot be assigned to any person and water body has to be protected as such. Merely because a part of water body as above became defunct, it cannot be a ground for reclassifying the same as assignable waste land. Therefore, this Court find no right
vesting in the petitioners which requires enforcement under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, the fact that the petitioners are poor persons depending on agriculture cannot be denied. Therefore, if they are eligible for being assigned agricultural land, they may approach the first respondent with fresh application for assignment of suitable land in which event, first respondent shall consider the case of the petitioners for assignment of other land. Further, if the petitioners are in possession of the land, they have to be evicted only after issuing notice to them.
The Writ Petition with the above observations and directions is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
1.11.2004
bnr
To
1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Narsampet Mandal,
Warangal District.
7 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Assignment,
High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (O.U.T)
8 Two CD Copies.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners encroaching on sikkam land have a right to claim the land pending reclassification proposals.
Whether petitioners can be evicted from sikkam land without a prior decision on reclassification.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala DeviExplained¶62
The Water Users' Association, Thimmayyagaripalli v. Government of A.P. (W.P.No.20323 of 2000)Explained¶62
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ajmeera Rana and others
Mandal Revenue Officer
Revenue Divisional Officer
District Collector
Commissioner of Land Revenue
Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department
V.V.S.Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
