Partly allowed

Visaka S P C a (Regd. 865 of 96 ) Rep. by President v. The District Collector

Telangana HC31 Oct 2013WP/3921/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner Society challenged the District Collector's notice to rescind its claim over assigned land purchased to house animals. The Court noted procedural lapses in resumption proceedings and granted an extension to file explanation, restraining dispossession till appeal expiry.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted four weeks to file explanation; dispossession stayed pending expiry of appeal period against adverse order.

Visaka S P C a (Regd. 865 of 96 ) Rep. by President Vs… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.3921 of 2009

¶6

Between: Visaka S.P.C.A.(Regd.865 of 96), Rep.by President Mr.Pradeep Kumar Nath Visakhapatnam

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND The District Collector, Visakhapatnam and another

¶9

.....RESPONDENTS

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.3921 of 2009

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

The petitioner assails the illegality of letter vide Rc.No.578/08/A, dated 21.01.2009 through which the attempts of resumption or acquisition was taken up by the respondents.

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that it is a Society, and established in the year 1996. One of its objects is to further the welfare and give protection to animals. In achieving the object of the Society, the petitioner avers that it is required to provide shelter, food and medication to animals. For the said purpose, the Society claims to have purchased an extent of Ac.4.00 in Sy.No.682/1 and 682/2 at Baligattam village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, by way of registered sale deeds vide Document Nos.2848/2007 and 2470/2007. The petitioner Society claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the land purchased under these deeds continuously.

¶16

The grievance in the writ petition is that through the impugned notice the petitioner has been called upon to show cause as to why action be initiated for violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The explanation was submitted on 31.01.2009, and even before the expiry of period granted for submission of explanation or conducting enquiry, the respondents are acting in haste to pass orders and dispossess the petitioner from subject lands.

¶17

This Court admitted the writ petition on 26.02.2009 and granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 21.01.2009.

¶18

The 2^nd respondent filed counter and also material papers on the various stages of the matter with regard to resumption of assigned lands, including the petitioner’s land. It is further stated that the land belongs to the Government and the petitioner purchased the assigned lands in violation of the Act and the Rules. The conditions of patta are violated and hence the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner did not file any explanation. On receipt of explanation from petitioner, the same will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed on merits.

¶19

There seems to be parallel proceedings on one hand, viz., issuing notice to the petitioner to submit explanation and on the other hand, informing the Revenue Divisional Officer that various lands including the land covered by Sy.Nos.682/1 and 682/2 of Baligattam village have been resumed to Government and handed over to the Assistant Engineer (Housing), Narsipatnam on 20.01.2009.

¶20

There is yet another contradiction in the conduct of resumption proceedings by the respondents. The respondents are exercising the power conferred by the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The Act provides various safeguards and the applicability of the Act is dependant on grant, year of grant etc., on this aspect, it is well settled by various decisions of this Court that assignment prior to 1954 has to be treated differentially. Resumption is not a matter of course. Resumption is an act performed by the 2^nd respondent on being satisfied that the provisions of the Act are attracted and the procedure stipulated for resumption is followed and to further object and Act resumption is undertaken. As already referred

¶21

to, the 2^nd respondent, on the face of it, has not followed the procedure stipulated in this behalf. In the counter affidavit he undertakes to conduct enquiry after receipt of the explanation from the petitioner.

¶22

In view of the above, without reference to what already has been submitted on 31.01.2009 by the petitioner, this Court grants 4 (four) more weeks from today to the petitioner to submit explanation to the notice dated 21.01.2009. The respondents after considering the explanation, without unnecessarily getting carried away by the stand already taken in the counter, dispose of the same, in accordance with law. No dispossession of petitioner from subject land be carried out till the period for filing appeal against its adverse order expires.

¶23

The Writ Petition is accordingly ordered. No order as to costs. WVMP No.2366/2013 shall stand closed in consequence.

¶24

__________________ S.V.BHATT,J

¶25

Date: 31.10.2013 Dsr

Visaka S P C a (Regd. 865 of 96 ) Rep. by President v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Visaka S P C a (Regd. 865 of 96 ) Rep. by President v. The District Collector

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

Veeramma Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Agricultural Market Committee, Vs Purustu Chinna

Talaltan Satya Prasad Rao Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

S. Eravanth Rao Vs The Collector

E. Bhoopal , Vs The District Manager

B. Krishna Vs The Collector