Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 135 (AP)

Bandla Rama Rao v. Secretary, Government Of A. P.

2004-02-06

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2004
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) AN extent of Ac. 365. 95 cents of land was surrendered by certain landholders under the provisions of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short the Act ) in Sy. No. 1 of bommarajupalli village, Epuru Mandal, guntur District. At the initiative of the government, a collective farming society by name Bommarajupalli Co-operative Joint farming Society Limited, the 5th respondent (for short the society ) was formed and the entire land of Ac. 365. 95 cents was assigned to the Society for cultivation. Petitioners held about Ac. 26. 5 of land by the side of the land, which was surrendered under the Act. While handing over the possession of the ac. 365. 95 cents of land to the Society, the possession of the lands of the petitioners were also delivered in the year 1991. ( 2 ) SOON thereafter, the petitioners made representations to the Collector and other revenue authorities for restoration of the land. The Revenue Divisional Officer, the 3rd respondent, is said to have submitted a report dated 4-4-1998 requesting the collector to arrange for survey of the land. When no action has been taken on the representations of the petitioners, they filed w. P. No. 22216/1998. The writ petition was disposed of, through order dated 6-8-1998, with a direction to the District Collector, guntur, Revenue Divisional Officer, narsaraopet and Mandal Revenue Officer, epuru Mandal, to conduct survey of the land in Sy. No. 1, to identify the land of the petitioners and redeliver the same to the petitioners. ( 3 ) THEREUPON, a Survey team was constituted to identify the lands of the petitioners. The Deputy Inspector of Survey submitted his report dated 17-7-1999 to the effect that in addition to the surplus lands, certain patta lands were also delivered to the society. Since there was an element of vagueness in it, the Mandal Revenue officer, Epuru, the 4th respondent, was directed to identify the exact extents of the patta lands and the particulars of the persons in whose possession and enjoyment the said lands are. ( 4 ) AFTER conducting a survey through the assistant Director of Survey and Land records, Guntur, a comprehensive joint inspection was undertaken and a report dated 22-2-2002 was prepared. ( 4 ) AFTER conducting a survey through the assistant Director of Survey and Land records, Guntur, a comprehensive joint inspection was undertaken and a report dated 22-2-2002 was prepared. The 4th respondent, in turn, had submitted a report dated 24-4-2002, furnishing the details of the patta lands as well as the persons who are said to be in possession thereof. No action has been taken thereon. The petitioners seek appropriate direction in this regard. ( 5 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, the various facts referred to above are not denied. On the other hand, they are specifically admitted. The justification for not taking further action is stated to be that the District Collector, respondent No. 2, is said to have addressed letters dated 5-3-2002 seeking instructions from the Chief Commissioner of Land revenue Administration and that further steps would be taken on the basis of the instructions that may be received from the chief Commissioner of Land Administration. ( 6 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government for land Acquisition. ( 7 ) THE grievance of the petitioners is that while handing over the possession of ac. 365-95 cents of land surrendered by various individuals under the provisions of the Act, the respondents have surrendered the lands of the petitioners also to the society. The petitioners had approached this court by filing a writ petition in this regard. It is not as if the claim of the petitioners is denied. Various proceedings or reports placed before this court disclose that the lands of the petitioners, to an extent of ac. 26-50 cents, were also delivered to the society by mistake. The actual persons who are found to be in enjoyment of the said lands are also identified. Instead of restoring the lands to the petitioners since the claim has been accepted, the 2nd respondent has chosen to address letter to the Chief commissioner of Land Administration. It was not as if the delivery of possession of the lands of the petitioners, or for that matter, the surrendered land of Ac. 365-95 cents was on the basis of any orders passed by the Chief commissioner. Having committed a serious mistake, detrimental to the interests of the petitioners, the respondents 1 to 4 cannot delay the matter in redelivering the possession of the lands. 365-95 cents was on the basis of any orders passed by the Chief commissioner. Having committed a serious mistake, detrimental to the interests of the petitioners, the respondents 1 to 4 cannot delay the matter in redelivering the possession of the lands. ( 8 ) ON receipt of the letter dated 5-3-2002 from the Collector, the Chief Commissioner had addressed a letter dated 1-4-2002 posing about 1/2 a dozen questions such as; how the District Formation Act applies? how the land was allotted to the Society? what is the title of the petitioners herein? etc. To say the least, the exercise undertaken by the respondents is the red-tapism in its best form. The step taken by the 2nd respondent in addressing the Chief Commissioner cannot be supported either on facts or in law. Being the Head of the Administration of the district, instead of correcting such blatant illegalities, he has chosen to delay the matter on one pretext or the other. There was no necessity whatever, to seek any opinion or instructions from the Chief Commissioner. ( 9 ) HENCE, the writ petition is allowed directing respondents 2 to 4 to restore the land of the petitioners as identified by various survey and revenue authorities in their reports submitted from time to time within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In default, the respondents 1 to 4 shall be liable to pay damages to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-per acre per annum commencing from the date of dispossession of the petitioners. No costs.