Allowed

Smt.T.S.Jhansi Rani, W/o. Late T.S. Hemanth Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC17 Aug 2012WP/23338/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed petitions filed by land purchasers challenging eviction orders under A.P. Assigned Lands Act for alleged transfer of assigned lands. Due to inconsistent information regarding assignment dates and details between officials, the court set aside lower orders and remanded matter to Tahsildar for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

Orders passed by 4th respondent, appeals, revisions, and memo dated 26-07-2012 set aside. Matters remanded to 4th respondent for fresh consideration.

Smt.T.S.Jhansi Rani, W/o. Late T.S. Hemanth Kumar Vs The… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

*** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY**

¶2

+ WRIT PETITION Nos.23308, 23309, 23310, 23312, 23314, 23315, 23316, 23323, 23324, 23334, 23335, 23538, 23539, 23540, 23541, 23542, 23543, 23544, 23545, 23546, 23547, 23711, 23712, 23713, 23714, 23715, 23716, 23717, 23718, 23720, 23721, 23722, 23723, 23929, 23930, 23931, 23932, 23933, 23934, 23935, 23936, 23937, 23938, 23939, 24017, 24018, 24019, 24020 AND 24021 OF 2012

¶3

% 21-08-2012

¶4

W.P. No.23308 OF 2012:

¶5

Between:

¶6

# Muppalaneni Srinivasa Rao S/o. Seshagiri Rao …Petitioner And $ The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Asn.V) Department, Secretariat,, Hyderabad and others.

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri B. Adinarayana Rao ^ Counsel for the Respondents : Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶9

<Gist:

¶10

>Head Note:

¶11

?Cases referred: NIL.

¶12

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶13

WRIT PETITION Nos.23308, 23309, 23310, 23312, 23314, 23315, 23316, 23323, 23324, 23334, 23335, 23538, 23539, 23540, 23541, 23542, 23543, 23544, 23545, 23546, 23547, 23711, 23712, 23713, 23714, 23715, 23716, 23717, 23718, 23720, 23721, 23722, 23723, 23929, 23930, 23931, 23932, 23933, 23934, 23935, 23936, 23937, 23938, 23939, 24017, 24018, 24019, 24020 AND 24021 OF 2012

¶14

COMMON ORDER:

¶15

In this batch of writ petitions, common question of fact and law arise. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.

¶16

2. The petitioners have purchased various extents of lands in different sub-divisions of Survey No.1397 of West Baptla Revenue Village, Guntur District. Alleging that the lands purchased by the petitioners were assigned to various individuals and that the petitioners purchased the same in contravention of Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’), the Tashildar, Baptla – the 4^th respondent issued notices in Form-II prescribed under the Act to the petitioners. They were required to submit explanation within fifteen days as to why they should not be summarily evicted from the land with the buildings, if any, and the same be, not resumed to Government.

¶17

3. The petitioners submitted individual explanations. According to them, the land was not assigned in nature, and that clear recitals were made in the respective sale deeds to the effect that the lands are not assigned. It was further pleaded that no objection was raised by the Sub-Registrar when the sale deeds were registered. They have also pointed out that while recognizing the title, the Tahsildar has issued Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds, and that the proceedings are untenable. The invocation of the provisions of the Act was also questioned, stating that there did not exist any condition prohibiting alienation, even if the lands were assigned in nature.

¶18

4. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioners, the 3^rd respondent passed separate orders of resumption on 18-05-2007. The petitioners filed appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, 3^rd respondent herein. The appeals were dismissed through orders, dated 15-03-2010. Thereupon, the petitioners filed revisions before the Joint Collector, Guntur, 2^nd respondent herein. Through a common order, dated 29-03-2012, the 2^nd respondent dismissed the revisions. The petitioners availed the remedy of further revision to the Government, 1^st respondent herein. The revisions were also dismissed through order, dated 26-07-2012. Hence, this batch of writ petitions.

¶19

5. The petitioners contend that the 4^th respondent was not clear as to when the different pieces of land in Survey No.1397 were assigned and to whom, and unless these aspects are clear, the very basis for initiation of proceedings becomes untenable. They submit that the respondents 1, 2 and 3 did not examine the various contentions advanced by them and have simply dismissed the appeals or revisions, as the case may be.

¶20

6. Counter - affidavits are filed in some of the writ petitions. Since the facts relating to all the cases are common, the averments in the counter – affidavits can be treated as holding good, for all the cases.

¶21

7. The respondents pleaded that different extents of land in Survey No.1397 were assigned to various individuals and that the petitioners have purchased the assigned lands. It is stated that on account of the non-availability of the relevant record, the particulars of the assignees were not furnished and the subsequent verification revealed that the assignments were made in the year 1962 and thereabout. It is also stated that the purchase of lands, by the

¶22

petitioners is in clear violation or contravention of the provisions of the Act and that all the authorities in the hierarchy of remedies, have consistently held against the petitioners and that the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

¶23

8. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the notices issued in Form – II of the Act to the petitioners are vague and bereft of the relevant particulars. He submits that though specific plea was raised to the effect that the lands were not assigned in nature, the 4^th respondent passed laconic orders, without even mentioning the date of assignment. He contends that the date of assignment assumes significance in view of the fact that the policy decision to incorporate the condition prohibiting alienation of assigned lands, was taken only in the year 1954. Learned Counsel further submits that one after the other, the appellate and the revisional authorities have just reproduced the observations made by their immediate subordinates and refused to grant any relief; without discussing important issues raised by the petitioners. According to him, the proceedings are initiated on account of the political pressure and there is lack of application of mind, at various stages of the proceedings.

¶24

9. Learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, submits that the vast extent of land in Survey No.1397 of West Baptla village was assigned to various individuals in the year 1962 and the petitioners purchased the lands in contravention of the provisions of the Act. He submits that a mere recital in the sale deed that the land is not assigned in nature, does not make any difference. He submits that though the particulars of assignment were not furnished when the order of resumption was passed, the concerned record was traced thereafter and it clearly emerges that the lands were assigned in the year 1962 and thereabout. Learned Advocate General further submits that the concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the authorities at

¶25

various levels, do not warrant interference in the writ petitions.

¶26

10. The Act prohibits transfer or alienation of assigned lands and empowers the authorities of the Revenue Department to annul the transfer in case it is found to be in contravention of the provisions of the Act. They have the option either to restore the possession of the land to the original assignee, or to resume the land to the Government. Since a transaction of sale, which is otherwise valid, is liable to be set at naught, by invoking the provisions of the Act, strict adherence thereto, must be ensured. The circumstances under which the provisions of the Act can be invoked are clearly stated. Important among them are that,

¶27

(a) the land has been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person;

¶28

(b) a condition prohibiting the alienation of assigned land has been incorporated; and

¶29

(c) the assigned land was transferred in favour of another person.

¶30

11. Certain exceptions are also carved out. In case, the purchaser is a landless poor by himself, the transfer in his favour cannot be set aside. Similarly, if the transfer is in the form of mortgage to a Nationalized Bank or a Cooperative Society, the consequences provided for under the Act do not apply. Therefore, the Tahsildar, who initiates the proceedings, is required to be objective and to keep these aspects in mind while passing the orders.

¶31

12. In the instant case, the 4^th respondent issued notices in Form - II of the Act to the petitioners herein. It is important to note that corresponding notices in Form – I were not issued to the assignees. This is evident from the information furnished by the 3^rd respondent himself. On receipt of notices, the petitioners submitted detailed

¶32

representations on 16-05-2007 through registered post, narrating the circumstances under which they purchased the lands and the existence of the title in their vendors. The 4^th respondent, however, passed individual orders, dated 18-05-2007, proceeding as though no reply was received from the petitioners. It appears that a standard form was adopted and blanks, pertaining to individual cases, were filled. In the preamble of the order, it was necessary for him to mention the particulars of the assignee and the date of assignment. He left the date of assignment, blank. The typical order passed by him reads as follows:

¶33

“An extent of Ac.1.10 cents of Government Land in Survey No.1397-1J of West Bapatla Village of Baptla Mandal was assigned to Sri/Smt.Daggumalli Seshaiah of West Baptla Village of Bapatla Mandal by the then Tahsildar / Mandal Revenue Officer, Baptla vide D.K.

¶34

,Dated:

¶35

Sri/Smt.Muppalaneni Srinivasa Rao (Rice Mill) of West Bapatla Village Bapatla Mandal had acquired the assigned land in Survey No.1397-1J as shown above in contravention of the Provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. Notices were issued to the assignee as well as alienee in the reference 1^st and 2^nd read above. No reply was received either from the assignee or from the alienee.

¶36

In view of the fact that Sri/Smt.Muppalaneni Srinivasa Rao (Rice Mill), having acquired the assigned land, contravened the Provisions of subsection (1) of Sec.3 of the A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Hence the assigned land in question is hereby resumed to Government. It is hereby ordered for eviction of him/her/them from the assigned land in Survey No.1397-1J Ac.1.10 cents of West Bapatla village of Baptla Mandal and the fact of resumption shall be noted in the Village Record.

¶37

The Mnadal Revenue Inspector-I, Bapatla is authorized to take possession of the land under Panchanama and make necessary entries in Village records.

¶38

The order shall come into force with immediate effect. ………….”

¶39

13. In the appeals, preferred by the petitioners before the

¶40

3^rd respondent, they raised several grounds. Though the 3^rd respondent undertook discussion on certain aspects, particularly with reference to sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act, he too glossed over the question as to when the assignments were made, and in whose favour. The appeals were dismissed.

¶41

14. The 2^nd respondent, before whom the revisions were filed under Section 4(A)(2) of the Act, no doubt, has undertaken a detailed discussion on various aspects with reference to the judgments, cited before him. As regards the plea relating to absence of particulars of assignment, especially the date of assignment, the 2^nd respondent observed as below:

¶42

“When a bigger revenue survey number belonging to the government and is sub divided and issued pattas to the assignees based on their eligibility and when some of the original assignees or their Legal heirs are found cultivating the said assigned land and when few of them found sold to the third parties duly violating the conditions of assignment, the fact that the Tahsildar has given notices to the sub division numbers wherever the enjoyer is unable to produce the records of the original assignment but produced the registered details on their enjoyment wherein the alienation per se for this survey number or sub division numbers are prohibited and merely, questioning the non availability of records / details of the original assignee in the said notices issued under the provision of the Act will not be going to confer any title to the alleg3d purchaser or will not neutralize the violation on the part of the assignee.”

¶43

Though it was mentioned that ‘D’ Form pattas in respect of few survey numbers are available, it was not mentioned as to in respect of which land, the pattas are available.

¶44

15. It is important to note that while pursuing the remedies of appeal and revision, the petitioners submitted an application before the 4^th respondent under Right to Information Act with a request to furnish certain information. The first question was as to how many persons were issued notices under Section 3 of the Act as regards the

¶45

land in Survey Nos.1385 to 1399 and a request was made to furnish copies of acknowledgments. The reply was that notices were issued to 272 persons. The second question was as to whether the Marripudi Adi Andhra Tenant Cooperative Society was shown as the assignee or whether the individuals were mentioned as assignees? It was replied that notices were issued only to the persons who are in possession. The third question was about the nature of assignment/grant and the date, month and year of the assignment. A request was also made to furnish the copies. The answer is to the effect that the land is assigned to Marripudi Adi Andhra Tenant Cooperative Society and the information as to whether the assignment is conditional or not is not available since the records are not traced out.

¶46

16. In the further appeals filed before the 1^st respondent common orders were passed vide memo dated 26-07-2012. It is important to note that the report, submitted by the District Collector which inturn has extracted the orders of the Joint Collector, was reproduced in its entirety in the orders passed by the 1^st respondent. The only paragraph that can be attributed to the 1^st respondent, reads: “In the circumstances reiterated by the Collector, Guntur, and keeping in view of the recorded evidences on perusal of the original records, furnished by the Collector, Guntur, I do not find any merits to interfere with the orders passed by the Joint Collector, Guntur, vide proceedings, dated 2903-2012 and hence, the stay orders granted vide memo, dated 17-05-2012 are hereby vacated.”

¶47

17. When the rights over a substantial extent of land are involved, the 1^st respondent ought to have examined the matter with reference to various pleas urged by the petitioners, than just relying upon the report submitted by the Collector. Such an exercise cannot be said to be the one, expected of an authority, conferred power under an important piece of legislation.

¶48

18. There is any amount of inconsistency between the observations made by the respondents at various stages of the proceedings on the one hand, and the information furnished by the 4^th respondent in reply to an application filed under the Right to Information Act on the other. Being the authorities in the public domain, the respondents were expected at least to be consistent though they are vested with the power and discretion, to decide the matters depending on their satisfaction. The respondents were required to ensure that no inconsistency exists atleast on important facts, be it as regards person or agency to which the land was assigned, date and nature of assignment and the conditions, if any, that are incorporated in the orders of assignment. Unfortunately, not only these important aspects are not adequately addressed, but also clear contradiction has emerged. This Court is of the view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners cannot be sustained in law and that the matter must go back to the 4^th respondent for fresh consideration and disposal.

¶49

19. Hence, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the orders challenged therein, commencing with the order, dated 18-05-2007, passed by the 4^th respondent, ending with the memo, dated 26-072012, issued by the 1^st respondent are set aside. The matters are remanded to the 4^th respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. He shall take into account, the explanation submitted by the petitioners as well as the endorsement, dated 12-10-2010, issued by his office on an application submitted by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act. It is also directed that incase, the 4^th respondent traces any orders of assignment in the respective cases, he shall furnish the copies thereof, to the petitioners and permit them to submit further explanation in relation thereto.

¶50

20. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these writ petitions also

¶51

stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶53

August 21, 2012. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. B/O. KTL

Smt.T.S.Jhansi Rani, W/o. Late T.S. Hemanth Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.T.S.Jhansi Rani, W/o. Late T.S. Hemanth Kumar 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

Juturu Ratnamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bammidi Kanta Rao,(A-1 ) Vs Bammidi Archana

G.Kurmaiah Goud, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C. Narayan Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Beena Bai, Vs The Commissioner of Police

Tamanchintala Nageswar Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh