Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 318 (AP)

C Mallamma v. State Of AP

2023-02-06

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2023
ORDER : The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that considering their social status being landless poor and recognizing that they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.2-50 cents each in Survey No. 395/D1 of Abdullapuram village, Velgodu Mandal, Kurnool District, the Government assigned the said extents in favour of the petitioners through patta in R.Dis.No.249/DIR/1409, dated 05.04.2000 and their names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued to them for their respective extents of lands. The 3rd respondent- Joint Collector, Kurnool, basing on the complaint said to have been made by the 6th respondent, cancelled the assignment pattas granted in favour of the petitioners, vide orders in R.C.E2/790/2004, dated 02.04.2017. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent-The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration vide Appeal No.BCW1/80/2017 on 22.05.2017 and questioning the inaction of the 2nd respondent in taking up the appeal, the petitioners filed W.P.No.19185 of 2017 and this Hon’ble Court disposed of the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to take up the appeal and to pass orders on the stay application. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent vide orders dated 24.01.2019 dismissed the appeal justifying the action of the 3rd respondent-joint collector in cancelling the assignments and further directed the 3rd respondent to enquire into the matter. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order dated 24.01.2019, the petitioners preferred this writ petition. 2. The respondent-Tahsildar, filed counter, denying the averments of the petition inter alia contending that the land in an extent of Ac.5-00 cents in Survey No.395/D1 was originally assigned to one Madiga Pedda Gajjalu vide R.Dis.No.181/DAR/1377, dated 20.10.1967 by the then Independent Deputy Tahsildar, Atmakur, considering his eligibility and by following the procedure and the said Madiga Pedda Gajjalu had been in possession and enjoyment of the said land and continued cultivation upto 1993 and thereafter the said land was erroneously assigned to one Nagamani @ Nagamma on 08.09.1993 and the said Nagamani relinquished her patta in favour of the petitioners, who are her close blood relatives, and accordingly, the petitioners got D-pattas irregularly and erroneously, without there being cancellation of the original D-patta and the second D-patta. It is further stated that, the 6th respondent, who is son of Madiga Pedda Gajjalu, on behalf of all the successors filed objection for cancellation of irregular assignments and the Joint Collector, Kurnool, who is competent to decide the issue under B.S.O. 15(18), after verification of connected records, cancelled the irregular D-pattas granted to the petitioners and the Tahsildar was directed to restore the said land to legal heirs under Section 4(b)(ii) of the P.O.T. Act, 1977 and the appeal preferred by the petitioners assailing the orders of the Joint Collector was also dismissed directing the Joint Collector to enquire into the sale agreement executed by the original assignee Madiga Pedda Gajjalu in the year 1993 by violating the conditions of assignment and delivering possession of the land by him to one Thulasanna and whether the family members of the original assignee has land in excess of the limit under the provisions of BSO and A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act and further directed the Tahsildar to restore the land to the legal heirs of the original assignee. The impugned orders came to be passed, after giving opportunity to both the parties and the same needs no interference and prayed to dismissed the writ petition. 3. The 6th respondent filed counter denying the averments of the writ petition, inter alia contending that, the original assignee borrowed amount from one G.Tulasanna and the said Tulasanna obtained the signatures of the original assignee at the time of lending the amount and created an agreement of sale and later he managed to get assignment in favour of his daughter Nagamama in respect of the land assigned to his borrower and later the said Nagamma sold the assigned land to the writ petitioners and thereafter the petitioners got assignment of the above said land to an extent of Ac.2-50 cents each. The 3rd respondent, on the representation made by the 6th respondent, conducted enquiry and in exercise of powers conferred on him under BSO 15(18), cancelled the assignment made in favour of the petitioners vide proceedings Rc.E2/2790/2004 dated 22.04.2017. The orders passed by the 3rd respondent were confirmed by the 2nd respondent in revision and so also by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Vijayawada in appeal. It is further stated that the petitioners are not eligible for assignment, since their husbands are working as Executive Officer in Endowment and conductor in APSRTC respectively. The orders passed by the 3rd respondent were confirmed by the 2nd respondent in revision and so also by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Vijayawada in appeal. It is further stated that the petitioners are not eligible for assignment, since their husbands are working as Executive Officer in Endowment and conductor in APSRTC respectively. The second assignment made to Nagamani and the subsequent assignment made to the writ petitioners is irregular and erroneous, without cancelling the original assignment made to the original assignee Madiga Pedda Gajjalu. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration has considered the material available on record in a right perspective and came to the right conclusion in dismissing the appeal and the same does not require any interference of this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri Narasimhulu Parise, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment and Sri P.Ganga Ramireddy, learned counsel for the 6th respondent. 5. Sri Narasimhulu Parise, learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration, would submit that, as per the contentions raised by the 6th respondent, the subject land was originally assigned to father of the 6th respondent in the year 1967, who sold the same to one Tulasanna in the year 1993 and the said Tulasanna took possession of the subject land and this shows that either the original assignee or his family members was in possession of the subject land since the year 1993 and the original assignee never raised any objection during his lifetime. It is further contended that, as per Section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, if the original assignee sells the assigned lands in violation of the conditions of assignment, the land can be resumed to the transferee, who purchases the land in good faith. It is further contended that, the lands were assigned to the petitioners in the year 2000, but the 6th respondent having kept quiet for almost 17 years had preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector and though the petitioners have specifically brought it the notice of the Joint Collector that the assignment was made in their favour almost 17 years prior to the appeal, without answering the said contention, the Joint Collector has allowed the appeal. It is further contended that, the petitioners have specifically raised in the grounds of revision that the 6th respondent was never in possession of the subject land and that the originally assignee had sold the land contravening the conditions of the assignment and that the revenue authorities after conducting detailed enquiry have issued assignment pattas in favour of the petitioners. It is further contended that, without conducting proper enquiry and without giving an opportunity to the petitioners, the authorities cannot come to the conclusion that the assignment made in favour of the petitioners as irregular. It is further contended that, the original assignee has sufficient agricultural lands and some of his legal heirs are doing government jobs and thus the original assignee is not entitled for assignment, however, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, without properly considering the said aspects and even without considering the fact that the legal heirs of the original assignee had sought for cancellation of assignments nearly 21 years after they were made in favour of the petitioners, dismissed the revision petition. As such prayed to allow the writ petition and to set aside the impugned proceedings. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment contended that, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, after considering all the contentions raised by the stakeholders and upon appreciation of the material placed before him in right perspective dismissed the appeal and the said reasoned order neither suffers from illegality nor procedural irregularity and the same does not require interference of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Sri P. Ganga Ramireddy, learned counsel for the 6th respondent, has contended that, the assignment made either to Nagamma or to the petitioners without cancelling the original assignment made in favour of his father, is irregular and as such the Joint Collector, Kurnool rightly cancelled the assignments under BSO 15(18) and the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration has rightly dealt with the issue in accordance with the provisions envisaged in the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and rightly justified the cancellation orders passed by the Joint Collector. The reasoned orders so passed by the appellate as well as revisional authority do not require interference of this Court and hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. The reasoned orders so passed by the appellate as well as revisional authority do not require interference of this Court and hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perusal of the record shows that, the 6th respondent approached the Joint Collector for cancellation of assignments, nearly 17 years after the lands were assigned in favour of the petitioners. Though the petitioners have specifically raised the said issue, the aspect of delay has not been dealt with by the Joint Collector. The 2nd respondent-Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, also did not consider the aspect of delay though the petitioner have specifically raised the same in the grounds of appeal to the effect that the authorities have no power to restore the lands to the legal heirs of the original assignee after lapse of 21 years. Thus, the 2nd respondent-appellate authority has not dealt with the issue regarding delay and passed orders simply ignoring the contentions raised by the petitioners in that regard. 9. In view of the above, this Court, in order to meet the ends of justice, is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, at the stage of admission, with the following directions: (a) The impugned proceedings No. BEW1/80/2017, dated 24.01.2019 are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent-Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. (b) The 2nd respondent- Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Vijayawada shall hear the petitioners as well as the 6th respondent and pass a reasoned order duly answering all the grounds raised by the petitioners including the ground of delay and communicate the same to the petitioners as well as the 6th respondent. (c) There shall be no order as to costs As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.