Petitioners challenging re-distribution of assigned agricultural land they claimed to have purchased from original vendors where authorities had resumed land due to alleged unauthorized transfer and re-allocated to eligible beneficiaries following statutory notice procedures.
The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
WRIT PETITION No. 22069 OF 2010.
DATED 18th January, 2011
BETWEEN
Yerramsetty Subrahmanyam and anr
…Petitioners
And
The Tahsildar, Padana Mandal, Pedana, Krishna District and ors.
….Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
WRIT PETITION No. 22069 OF 2010 .
ORDER:
The first petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.1.00 covered by Sy.No. 566/3A of Chennur Village, Pedana Mandal, Krishna District, having purchased the same in the year 2003 from its original owners, for valuable consideration. It is stated that immediate after purchase of the land, his vendors delivered the pattadar pass books and title deeds to the first petitioner in the year 2003 itself and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land by cultivating the same. The second petitioner also purchased an extent of Ac.0.75 covered by Sy.No. 537/1A of Chennur village, Pedana Mandal, Krishna District from its
original owners for valuable consideration and immediate thereafter, he was put in possession of the said land, and, title deeds and pattadar passbooks were handed over to him by his vendors, and since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land.
It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that when the third respondent trying to dispossess the petitioners from the aforesaid lands in the month of April, 2010, the petitioners filed suits in O.S.Nos. 143 and 145 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents/defendants therein. However, the said two suits were withdrawn. Again when the second respondent tried to dispossess the petitioners from the aforesaid lands, the petitioners made a representation to the third respondent/District Collector stating that they have been cultivating the aforesaid lands since more than ten years. The petitioners also submitted a representation to the first respondent/Tahsildar, Pedana Mandal, by marking the same to second and third respondents, to grant pattas in their favour. Despite submission of the representations, no action has been taken on the representations. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the first respondent/Tahsildar is taking active steps to dispossess them from the aforesaid lands, without giving any prior notice or opportunity of being heard.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners
that prior to initiation of the action for dispossessing the petitioners from the lands in question, it is mandatory for the first respondent to issue prior notice or opportunity of being heard, either under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977,( for short ‘the Act’) or under the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, in case, the petitioners encroached the government land. It is submitted that Section 1(5) of the Act contemplates that the provisions of Sub Sections (1) to (4) of Section 1 of the Act shall not apply to any assigned land in case the assigned land was purchased by a landless poor person and in good faith and for valuable consideration etc.,. It is stated that the petitioners are poor and landless persons. It is further submitted that incase the petitioners violated the provision under Section 4(1) of the Act in respect of the assigned lands, the authority empowered under the said Act shall take possession of the assigned lands after evicting the persons who are in possession of the said lands only after following due procedure contemplated under the Act and Rules made there under and restore the said land to the original owner. But, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 4 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 ( for short ‘the Rules’) by issuing prior notice or prior opportunity, the respondents are trying to disturb their long standing possession of the lands in question.
On the other hand, the respondents have filed counter affidavit rebutting the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that an extent of Ac.1.75 cents of agricultural land in RS.No. 566/3A was declared as LC land and the declarant surrendered the said land to the Government and the Government issued pattas to the weaker section people during the year 1983. The father of the petitioners was found in occupation of the said land, in contravention of Sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. Hence, a notice in Form-II under Rule 3 of the Rules was issued on 29.05.2007 to the transferee-father of the petitioners, asking him to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the aforementioned assigned land. It is stated that Notice in Form-I was also issued to the original assignees. It is stated that both the original assignees and the transferee-father of the petitioners did not submit any explanation in reply to the said notices in the stipulated time mentioned in the said notices. Thereafter, resumption order vide RC.A.No.191 of 2007, dated 16.3.2008 was passed, resuming the land to Government and possession was also taken on 20.07.2009.Therefter, the said land was proposed for distribution to eligible beneficiaries and A.1 notice was also published on 2.2.2010 calling for objections, if any, on the proposed beneficiaries selected for assignment of the said land. As no objections were received from the public, the
pattas were distributed to eligible beneficiaries on 15.7.2010 and the land was handed over to the beneficiaries on 17.4.2010. The respondents also denied the averment of the petitioners that the petitioners are landless poor persons. It is stated that the petitioners are in possession of an extent of Ac.0.99 cents in RS.No. 568/1 and Ac.0.72 cents in R.S.No. 568/2 respectively of Chennuru village. It is also stated that pursuant to the representation submitted by the petitioners on 22.7.2009 for grant of D.Form patta in respect of the subject land, an extent of Ac.0.22 cts each was granted on 15.4.2010.
In view of the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit, it cannot be said that the respondents have not followed the due procedure contemplated under the Act and rules made thereunder for eviction of the petitioners from the subject assigned land. Further more, the petitioners, pursuant to their representations, were granted D-form patta in the subject lands along with other beneficiaries. In that view of the matter, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
Dated 18th January, 2011. Msnro
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tahsildar followed the due procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules before taking possession of the assigned land.
Whether the petitioners are eligible for protection under Section 1(5) as landless poor persons purchasing in good faith.
Whether prior notice and opportunity of hearing were mandatory before resumption and re-distribution of the land.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Yerramsetty Subrahmanyam and anr
The Tahsildar, Padana Mandal, Pedana, Krishna District and ors.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
