Allowed

Methari Anthaiah S/o. Keshappa v. The Mandal Revenue Officer

Telangana HC10 Mar 2011WP/5003/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition where the Mandal Revenue Officer lacked jurisdiction to cancel a land assignment reserved for landless persons. The court further held that serving notices by affixing them to a tree violated principles of natural justice, as personal or registered post service was required at the last known address.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling the assignment passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer was set aside due to lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice.

Methari Anthaiah S/o. Keshappa Vs The Mandal Revenue… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

W.P. No. 5003 of 2007

¶3

Oral order:

¶4

The petitioners claim that they are landless poor persons. They state that in the year 1980, vide proceedings in B6/1943/80, the Government, assigned land in an extent of Acs. 10.28 gts. in Sy. No. 338, Zaheerabad village and mandal, Medak District, that was declared under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, to five persons, including the petitioners herein. That upon assignment, they paid the necessary amount, and put the land under cultivation, and since the date of assignment, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the petitioners state that respondent No.1, namely the Mandal Revenue Officer, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District, alleging that they have not brought the land under cultivation and thereby violated the conditions of allotment, and without issuing any notice, vide the impugned proceedings dated 08.02.2006 cancelled the assignment.

¶5

The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the Mandal Revenue Officer is not the authority competent to issue orders canceling the assignment, and if at all, assignment is to be cancelled, it is the Revenue Divisional Officer, who has to pass orders canceling the assignment. He further submitted that no notice whatsoever was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officers, to the petitioners before passing the impugned order, and as such, the impugned orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, canceling the assignment, violated the principles of natural justice. Hence, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

¶6

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed counter. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue reiterating the counter averments submitted that notice was not personally served on the petitioners because the address of the petitioners is not available, and therefore, the notice was affixed to the tree. He further submitted that even

¶7

though the Mandal Revenue Officer is not the competent authority to pass orders canceling the assignment, but since the Revenue Divisional Officer, subsequently ratified the action of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the impugned order of cancellation passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, cannot be faulted.

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents and perused the material papers and record produced before the Court by the respondents.

¶9

As per the assignment rules, the authority, who is competent to cancel the assignment, is the Revenue Divisional Officer, and as the impugned order canceling the assignment of the petitioners, is passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the same is without jurisdiction.

¶10

Though the respondents contend that before passing the impugned order, the Mandal Revenue Officer, served notice on the petitioners, but a perusal of the record produced by the respondents shows that the notice dated 12.01.2006, which is alleged to have been served on the petitioners, as is reflected in the impugned order, was not all served on the petitioners personally or by post, but it was affixed to the tree. When the respondents have assigned the land to the petitioners, and if they intended to cancel the assignment, they are under an obligation to serve notices on the petitioners, at their last known addresses available with them either personally or by registered post. The record produced by the respondents does not contain any material to show as to the steps taken by the respondents as to serving of notices on the petitioners. Merely affixing the notices to the tree at the lands, cannot be said to be effective service of notice on the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Zaheerabad Mandal, canceling the assignment, granted to the petitioners, violated the principles of natural justice.

¶11

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Zaheerabad Mandal, cannot be sustained, and the same is accordingly set aside.

¶12

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. This order, however,

¶13

will not preclude the competent authority from taking appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law, if they so desire.

¶14

Since it is the case of the respondents that the correct address of the petitioners is not available with them, the counsel for the petitioners shall furnish the correct address of the petitioners in the form of an affidavit and file the same in the Court, and serve a copy of the same to the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, within a week from today.

¶15

_______________ N.V. RAMANA, J.

¶16

Dated: 10^th March, 2011 KSR

Methari Anthaiah S/o. Keshappa v. The Mandal Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Methari Anthaiah S/o. Keshappa v. The Mandal Revenue Officer

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

Madala Suresh babu Vs Mrs. Madala Kalpana

G. Umamaheswari W/o Mohanachari Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary

Gone Bal Reddy Vs Smt. Kota Anila

G.Srinivas Rao Vs The Revenue Divisonal officer, Parvathipuram

G. Narsimha Gupta Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram

Chintakindi Laxmamma, Vs The District Collector