Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1258 (AP)

Boya Sanjanna v. District Collector, Kurnool

2014-10-10

CHALLA KODANDA RAM

body2014
ORDER Challa Kodanda Ram, J. 1. The petitioner has filed a Writ Petition seeking a declaration against the proposed action of the respondents in contemplating to issue pattas to SCs and BCs with respect to the petitioner's land to an extent of Ac. 05-90 cents situated in Sy. No. 88/1 of T. Somalagudur Village of Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool District, without following due process of law under the Land Acquisition Act, or any other law, and such action is contrary to and in violation of Articles 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 2. As per the writ affidavit, petitioner's father had purchased the land in 1976 in Sy. No. 88/1A over an extent of Ac. 5-90 cents situated at T. Somalagudur village of Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool District from one Sri R. Ramalinga Reddy for a valuable consideration of Rs. 28,000/- and since then his father and thereafter on his demise himself and his brothers are in possession and enjoyment of the said land cultivating the same. As a matter of fact, on 17.12.1994 by mortgaging the said land, vide document No. 4269/1994, to the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society of T. Somalagudur village, petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and he is paying the installments of the said loan amount. The land is only source of livelihood for the entire family of himself and his brothers. On 17.08.2003, the petitioner came to understand through Panchayat Secretary that after conducting enquiry he recommended for issuance of Pattadar Pass Books, and thereafter the 3rd respondent had in fact issued title deed, which was also counter signed by the 2nd respondent and Sub-Registrar of Yemmiganur. In January, 2004, petitioner came to know that the 3rd respondent is proposing to issue pattas over the petitioner's land to B.Cs., and S.Cs., who are alleged to be landless poor persons. Thereafter, petitioner approached the 3rd respondent and a representation was also made. However, the 3rd respondent refused to receive the said representation. The proposal of issuance of pattas was on account of the ensuing elections and at the instance of the local M.L.A., who also happens to be Minister. On 03.02.2004, petitioner got issued a registered legal notice to the respondents explaining the factum of their purchase of the land and requested them not to issue any pattas to third parties. There was no response given to the said notice. On 03.02.2004, petitioner got issued a registered legal notice to the respondents explaining the factum of their purchase of the land and requested them not to issue any pattas to third parties. There was no response given to the said notice. As there was imminent danger of issuance of pattas, especially at the instance of the local M.L.A., who also happens to be a Minister, the petitioner had rushed to this Court seeking protection. He has also stated that the petitioner had spent huge amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and above for developing the land and if they are deprived of the said land there would be enormous loss and damage affecting their right to life under Article 21 and 300A of the Constitution. 3. This Writ Petition came to be admitted on 31.03.2004 and also an interim order was granted on the same day. 4. A Counter affidavit dated 21.04.2004 was filed on behalf of 3rd respondent, whereunder it has been stated that the land originally belongs to one late R. Ramalinga Reddy and the same was determined to be surplus land under the provisions of A.P. Land Reforms (COAH) Act, 1973 (in short "the Act"), and was taken over under Section 10 of the said Act. It was also stated therein that the final orders under Section 10(3) were passed on 13.01.2003 and thereafter lands were taken into possession and pattas were also issued to the eligible beneficiaries as contemplated under Section 14 of the Act, in respect to the surplus land including the land in Sy. No. 88/1, on 09.02.2004. It has been further stated that there is prohibition under Section 17 of the Act with respect to the sale of the land in question, and alleged sale during the pendency of the land ceiling proceedings do not confer any right on the purchaser, and a reference was made to the Judgment of this Court in Y. Lachi Raju Vs. State of A.P., 1998 (1) ALT 429 to the effect that any sale subsequent to notified date (01.01.1975), is void and purchaser cannot claim right of ownership or right of hearing. 5. State of A.P., 1998 (1) ALT 429 to the effect that any sale subsequent to notified date (01.01.1975), is void and purchaser cannot claim right of ownership or right of hearing. 5. It is also submitted that Section 28 of the Act has over riding effect over other laws and the Pattadar Pass Books issued under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 were given irregularly in contravention of Rule 9(1)(a)(iv) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, and the same does not confer any right, as they were issued pending land ceiling proceedings. 6. Learned counsel Sri B. Vijaya Bhaskar submits that the father of the petitioner was illiterate and the petitioner and his brothers are also illiterates, and they were not aware of the pendency of the land ceiling proceedings, and at any rate as per the counter it is only on 13.01.2003, Section 10(3) proceedings were made. The respondents, in particular, 3rd respondent having admittedly issued Pattadar Pass Book in the year 2003, are aware of the petitioner's possession and cultivation of the land and the least that is expected is to issue notice in terms of Rule 7(4) r/w Section 7(8) of the Act. As required under Section 7(8) of the Act no enquiry to the effect that the sale was made by R. Ramalinga Reddy, was in anticipation of the act and to defeat the land ceiling proceedings. At any rate, he would also rely on the Order of this Court dated 04.11.1999 in W.P. No. 5940 of 1997. Apart from that order by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in Gangi Pothuraju and others Vs. Sri Merla Surya Prabhakar Rao and another 1996 (3) ALT 987 (S.B.), he would submit that there is a duty cast on the authorized officer not to accept the land which is encumbered particularly when there was other surplus land available with the declarant. He would also submit that by necessary implication when surplus land is available with the original declarant and there being no obligation on the authorized officer to accept encumbered land whose title and possession is in cloud, the authorized officer ought to have taken possession of the other land from the declarant. 7. He would also submit that by necessary implication when surplus land is available with the original declarant and there being no obligation on the authorized officer to accept encumbered land whose title and possession is in cloud, the authorized officer ought to have taken possession of the other land from the declarant. 7. On the other hand the learned Assistant Government Pleader Sri Srinivas, would reiterate the contents of the counter, particularly the prohibition under Sec. 17 of the Act. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and in particular the statutory scheme of the Act in relation to Rule 7(4) r/w Section 7(8) of the Act, there is a duty cast on the authorized officer to take possession of the land, which is clear from cloud and unencumbered. This is implicit by a combined reading of Rule 7 and Rule 8 of the Act. It is not in dispute and not specifically denied that the petitioner was in possession of the land at least since 1976 and they had availed the agricultural loans from the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society and further they were issued with Pattadar Pass Books. As a matter of fact, it was the 3rd respondent, who had issued Pattadar Pass Books in favour of the petitioner way back in the year 2003, and the 10(1) Adangal reflects the name of the petitioner's father. The specific contention of the petitioners is that they were not issued any notice, was not denied. This Court in C.R.P. No. 3952 of 1999 and batch held that the persons in possession who had purchased the land from the declarants are entitled to a notice before accepting to surrender of those lands by the declarant. In the above judgment, this Court also noticed judgment of K. Butchi Reddy V. State of Andhra Pradesh in C.R.P. No. 463 of 1978 dated 03.07.1975, wherein it was held that the lands proposed by the declarant for surrender can be accepted by the Tribunal only after notice to such persons who claims to be the purchaser from the declarant and is in possession. 9. In the above circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the cases referred to above, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. 9. In the above circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the cases referred to above, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. It is open for the respondents to proceed against the original declarant for taking over the surplus land by following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed. Petition allowed