Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1123 (AP)

M. Rajamma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2012-11-14

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2012
ORDER :- In both these writ petitions, the challenge is to the orders passed by the Government in Revenue Department, in G.O. Ms. No.1240, dated 27.9.2010. Through the said order, the 1st respondent transferred Acs.5.46 cents of land in Survey Nos.251/2, 252/2 of Greamspet Village, Chittoor Mandal and District, in favour of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Chittoor, for construction of a Scientific Driving Track. 2. The petitioners submit that the land in Survey No.251/2 admeasuring Acs.6.47 cents was owned by Gongireddy Achamma and her son-Gongireddy Raghava Reddy, and that the same was purchased by Sri N. Gopalakrishnan, through a sale deed, dated 26.6.1961. It is also stated that the land in Survey No.252/2 admeasuring Acs.9.10 guntas of the said village, was held by one Sri S.M. Nizamuddin, a retired CID Officer, since 1942 onwards, and he too sold that land in favour of N. Gopalakrishnan, through a sale deed, dated 19.5.1961. Gopalakrishnan is said to have prepared a layout for both the extents and got approval from the Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat, on 25.6.1981. The petitioners and certain others purchased plots of different sizes from out of the layout, mostly in the year 1981 and in the recent past. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the land in the form of plots is under their enjoyment for the past several decades, the 1st respondent issued the impugned G.O., allotting the land to the Transport Department for establishment of a driving track. 3. The petitioners submit that no proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the L.A. Act') and that the land was not assigned at any point of time. They further plead that, even if there existed any assignment, it was much before the year 1954, and since there was no condition prohibiting alienation, it could not have been resumed under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act'). Other contentions are also urged. 4. On behalf of respondents, the Tahasildar, Chittoor Mandal, filed a detailed counter-affidavit. He submits that an extent of Ac.0.13 cents of land in Survey No.251/2 was assigned to Thulasi Naidu and Acs.5.00 in that very survey number to Sri Annamalai in the year 1957 and 1958, respectively. Other contentions are also urged. 4. On behalf of respondents, the Tahasildar, Chittoor Mandal, filed a detailed counter-affidavit. He submits that an extent of Ac.0.13 cents of land in Survey No.251/2 was assigned to Thulasi Naidu and Acs.5.00 in that very survey number to Sri Annamalai in the year 1957 and 1958, respectively. It is also stated that Ac.1.50 cents in Survey No.252/1 was assigned to one Sri Gopalan in the year 1973 and Acs.9.10 cents in that survey number was assigned to Shaik Nizamuddin, in the year 1953. He has also stated that since the land was found not under cultivation from the date of assignment, notices under Section 3 of the Act were issued on 16.8.2009, through substituted service, and since no explanation was forthcoming, orders of resumption were passed on 9.9.2009. The Tahasildar stated that the resumed land was handed over to the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Transport Commissioner for construction of their office buildings. According to him, the so-called purchases made by the petitioners are untenable and contrary to law and that the petitioners do not have any right over the land. 5. It was way back in the year 1961, that one Mr. Gopalakrishnan purchased about 15½ acres of land in Survey Nos.251/2 and 252/1 of Greamspet Village, and 20 years thereafter, he divided the plots and sold away them to the petitioners and others, in the year 1991. Since the petitioners are purchasers of plots from Gopalakrishnan, they were not aware as to whether the land was assigned in nature. Further proceedings were not initiated under the Act for cancellation of assignment. The land was resumed by the Tahasildar, on the ground that it was not put to cultivation. 6. In case the land continued to be with the assignees, there would have been justification for the Tahasildar to resume it, on the ground that it was not cultivated. The lands were sold way back in the year 1961. He could not have feigned ignorance of such a development. If the lands were transferred, the transferees derive rights of ownership. It is a different matter that in case the transfers attracted the provisions of the Act, proceedings could have been initiated against them and the transfers could have been annulled. He could not have feigned ignorance of such a development. If the lands were transferred, the transferees derive rights of ownership. It is a different matter that in case the transfers attracted the provisions of the Act, proceedings could have been initiated against them and the transfers could have been annulled. The Act itself provides for certain exceptions, such as, there not being a condition prohibiting alienation of assigned land, the purchaser being himself a poor, or the sale having taken place much before the Act came into force. It is only when a notice is issued to the transferee that the pleas of that nature could have been taken. Just with one stroke of pen, the Tahasildar has set at naught, the transactions that took place over past half a century. 7. Had the land not been put to use by this time, this Court would have considered the feasibility of setting aside the order of resumption, leaving it open to the Tahasildar to initiate proceedings under the Act. However, the record discloses that the land was resumed and Government buildings were constructed. Therefore, the question of resumption boils down to the one of detem1ining the nature of rights of the petitioners, vis-a-vis the land. 8. In case the land was held in patta and was not assigned at all, the respondents would be under obligation to pay compensation under the L.A. Act. If, on the other hand, the land is found to have been assigned, there did not exist any condition prohibiting alienation that may bring about an obligation to pay compensation under the L.A. Act, or the one for payment of ex gratia. For this purpose, a detailed verification of the records becomes necessary. 9. Hence, the writ petitions are disposed of directing that, (a) it shall be open to the petitioners to submit a detailed representation stating relevant facts, to the District Collector, Chittoor; (b) the District Collector, shall examine the representation, if submitted. For this purpose, a detailed verification of the records becomes necessary. 9. Hence, the writ petitions are disposed of directing that, (a) it shall be open to the petitioners to submit a detailed representation stating relevant facts, to the District Collector, Chittoor; (b) the District Collector, shall examine the representation, if submitted. If it emerges that the land covered by the G.O., or part of it, was not assigned at all, he shall take steps for issuing notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of such land; (c) if, on the other hand, it is found that the land was assigned, he shall examine the question as to whether the cancellation of the assignment is contrary to law, duly taking into account the contentions that may be urged by the petitioners; (d) if it emerges that the order of resumption passed by the Tahasildar is contrary to law, the Collector shall pass appropriate orders for compensating the petitioners either by paying ex gratia or by allotting alternative land. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of submission of representation by the petitioners. 10. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these writ petitions shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.