Disposed

Jadi Narsu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC12 Jul 2011WP/19231/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice to cancel patta rights. The judge directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider resumption provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands Act, suspended an order preventing land entry, and allowed the petitioner fifteen days to establish eligibility.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of. The writ petitioner is granted fifteen days to prove eligibility. An order not to enter the land is suspended.

Jadi Narsu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.19231 OF 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Since this petition is directed against a show cause notice issued by the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, calling upon the writ petitioner to explain as to why the patta rights granted in her favour be not cancelled in respect of land of Ac.3.00 situated in Sy.No.191/1 of Gampalapalli Village of Tandur Mandal, Adilabad District, it may not be necessary to admit this writ petition and it can be disposed of at this stage.

¶4

2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Assignments, who took notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶5

3. The writ petitioner claims that she is a member belonging to Scheduled Caste. It is also further claimed by her that her husband while working with the Singareni Collories Company, met with an untimely death. In view of her distressful condition, to eek out a living in an honourable manner all by herself, she has purchased this land of Ac.3.00 from Sri Oddepalli Sambaiah who in turn was assigned this land by the Government. The case of the petitioner is that, with her hard labour and investment she improved upon the land and brought it into cultivable condition. She is presently carrying on cultivation there. She has approached the Tahsildar, Tandur Mandal who after conducting necessary enquiry into the matter has granted her pattedar passbook bearing No.317, duly recording her rights over the land of Ac.3.00 situated in Sy.No.191/9 which is the correct survey sub division number. It is this certificate, which is now sought to be cancelled by the RDO.

¶6

4. Heard Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner who submits that the action of the RDO is inspired because of the request from ineligible persons to cancel the patta granted in favour of the writ petitioner over this land. A crude attempt is made, according to the learned counsel, by ineligible persons to grab this land for extraneous reasons and consideration. Further, certain vested interests are working against the

¶7

petitioner in as much as she is a member belonging to Schedule Caste and has no other help or support in the village.

¶8

5. While the contentions canvassed by Sri Raghuveer Reddy are worthy of seriously taking note of, but nonetheless I consider it appropriate to direct the RDO to consider invoking the provision available under the first proviso to Subsection 1 of Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers Act, 1977). It is contemplated by the said proviso that whether the original assignee or his legal heir after the first restoration transfers the assigned land, the said law shall be resumed for assignment to the other eligible landless poor persons. In the first instance, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the assignment made in favour of the original assignee stood cancelled in the year 2007 itself. The original assignee has not made any attempt for securing the restoration of the said land to his possession back. Hence, the Tahsildar finding the writ petitioner as equally eligible has assigned the land in her favour. The only objection now sought to be pressed against the petitioner is that the procedure contemplated for assignment of land in favour of the writ petitioner has not been followed by the Tahsildar.

¶9

6. It is worth seriously exploring, as to whether the writ petitioner is equally eligible to be assigned land and if she satisfies the criteria fixed in that respect, the appropriate decision may be taken for treating the assignment made by the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner as correct but, however if land has to be resumed, the same be resorted to for achieving a public purpose and not for any other reason. It is open to the petitioner to file such material as is considered appropriate by her to satisfy the RDO that she is eligible to be assigned the land in question within a period of fifteen days from today. Thereafter, the RDO will provide an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner or through a counsel and then take appropriate decision in the matter. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶10

7. Till such time, the RDO takes an appropriate decision in the matter

¶11

and the orders of Tahsildar passed on 30.06.2011 directing the petitioner not to enter upon the land in question shall stand suspended. The writ petitioner shall not be prevented from carrying on agricultural operations in the said land in the interregnum.

¶12

8. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

____________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J

¶14

July 12, 2011 SP

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.19231 OF 2011

¶17

July 12, 2011

¶18

Jadi Narsu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jadi Narsu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tallapalli Shankar Goud Vs The District Collector

Chitemalla Ramakka Vs Chitemalla Lasmu Bai [died]

A.Mounika Vs The District Collector

Zareena Sultana Vs The District Collector

Ajay Kumar Agarwal Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ajay Kumar Agarwal Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh