Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 636 (AP)

B. Sarojanamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-04-30

T.C.D.SEKHAR

body2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER : The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief : …to declare the action of the respondents particularly R4 is in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and Article 30 of the State Policy following Board Standing Orders assigning the land to Ex-Serviceman in passing the impugned order Rc.(E8)/286/2018, dated 01.02.2021 by R4 upholding the resumption orders passed by Revenue Divisional Officer Naidupeta issued vide Rc.B2/391/2017 dated 01.02.2018 by issuing a writ of mandamus and consequently set aside the impugned order passed by the R4 vide impugned order Rc.(E8)/286/2018, dated 01.02.2021 and pass order or such other orders deems fit and proper in the interest of ….” 2. The husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 namely Sri Ananta Padmanabham was Ex-Serviceman who served in Indian Army from 1939 to 1952 and it is stated that, he was awarded Independence Medal, War Medal, Burma War of 1939-1945 Medal. It is further case of the petitioners that he served for eleven years, five months and eleven days in Indian Army. After his discharge from Indian Army, in due recognition of his services rendered to the country, the 6th respondent granted DKT patta vide Patta No.66/1409, dated 22.11.1999, in his favor, under Ex-Servicemen quota in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Acs.5.00 cents in Sy.No.51-12 of Yenkollu Village, Doravarisatram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. It is further case of the petitioners that, the original assignee and the 1st petitioner reclaimed the land and dug bore-well for the purpose of cultivation. The said assignment was made pending transfer of classification of the subject land from grazing poramboke to AWD (Assessed Waste Dry). It is further stated that, since the date of grant, the original assignee i.e., Sri Ananta Padmanabham was in peaceful possession, enjoyment and cultivated the said land till his demise on 18.02.2002. Subsequently, pattadar passbook was issued in favor of the 1st petitioner, after conducting enquiry. 3. It is further stated that the petitioners obtained financial assistance from nationalized banks by depositing the DKT patta, so as to cultivate the subject land. It is further stated that RSR record also reflect the name of the original assignee. Subsequently, pattadar passbook was issued in favor of the 1st petitioner, after conducting enquiry. 3. It is further stated that the petitioners obtained financial assistance from nationalized banks by depositing the DKT patta, so as to cultivate the subject land. It is further stated that RSR record also reflect the name of the original assignee. It is further stated that, while so, the 6th respondent issued show-cause notice dated 31.07.2011, to the 1st petitioner asking her to submit explanation within a period of three days, as to why the subject land shall not be resumed by cancelling the assignment made in favor of her husband, on the ground that as the 5th respondent returned the proposal to change the classification of the land as the same is not fit for cultivation and the it can be utilized for public purpose. To the said show-cause notice, the 1st petitioner submitted explanation dated 10.08.2011, stating that the original assignee and herself spent more than Rs.7,00,000/- for reclaiming the subject land and made the same fit for cultivation. It is further averred that they have dug bore well, cultivated the subject land by raising dry crops during faslis 1416 to 1419 and the same was recorded in copies of adangals. 4. It is further case of the petitioners that, without considering their case in its proper perspective, the 6th respondent passed order vide Proceedings Bearing Rc.No.24/2010, dated 28.08.2011, whereby and whereunder resumed the land to Government under Section 4(1) of Act 9 of 1977, as there is clear violation of Condition No.2 of DKT patta and directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector to take possession of the subject land and to implement the order in relevant village accounts. 5. Aggrieved by order dated 28.08.2011, the 1st petitioner preferred appeal vide Appeal No.3016 of 2011, before the 5th respondent alongwith application seeking stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the said order passed by the 6th respondent. It is further stated that, as the appeal was not taken up for hearing, the 1st petitioner filed writ petition vide WP No.26600 of 2011, inter alia questioning the order dated 28.08.2011, passed by the 6th respondent. It is further stated that, as the appeal was not taken up for hearing, the 1st petitioner filed writ petition vide WP No.26600 of 2011, inter alia questioning the order dated 28.08.2011, passed by the 6th respondent. This Court, by order dated 11.08.2015, disposed of the said writ petition, directing the 5th respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the 1st petitioner, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the said order. Further, while disposing of the said writ petition, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo, till the disposal of the appeal by the 5th respondent. 6. In pursuance of order passed by this Court in the above writ petition, the 5th respondent called for a report from the 6th respondent and accordingly a report was submitted on 20.01.2018, whereunder, the 6th respondent stated that the subject land is lying waste on ground and the same was never cultivated either by the original assignee or by the petitioners. It is further stated that the subject land is situated on the left side of National Highway, near to DV Satram-Naidupet Road and Mandal Complex, BC Residential School, Offices of Tahsildar and MPDO are located nearby. Based on the said report, the 5th respondent passed order dated 01.02.2018, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners on the ground that the subject land has got much potential value and the same is not fit for agriculture. Further, it was observed that the subject land is required for the purpose of construction of Kasturiba Devi Balika Vidyalayam. It was further observed in the said order that, the 6th respondent granted DKT patta without changing the classification of land from grazing poramboke to AWD, which amounts to procedural irregularity, and therefore the assignment granted in favor of Sri Ananta Padmanabham was irregular and accordingly confirmed the order passed by the 6th respondent. Questioning the orders passed by the respondent Nos.5 & 6, the petitioners preferred a further appeal before the 4th respondent, who in turn dismissed the said appeal by order dated 01.02.2021. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition is filed. 7. Questioning the orders passed by the respondent Nos.5 & 6, the petitioners preferred a further appeal before the 4th respondent, who in turn dismissed the said appeal by order dated 01.02.2021. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition is filed. 7. On the other hand, the 6th respondent filed counter-affidavit, inter alia reiterating the reasons mentioned in the impugned orders that the original assignee did not bring the land fit for cultivation within a period three (3) years from the date of assignment and thereby violated the Condition No.2 of the DKT patta. The counter-affidavit further states that, the assignment was made without changing the classification of land from grazing poramboke to AWD, and therefore, the patta granted in favor of the original assignee was irregular and was rightly cancelled. It is further averred in the counter-affidavit that, at the time of inspection conducted by the 3rd respondent, the subject land was covered with thorny bushes and pits, and therefore, the same is not suitable for cultivation, apart from the same, the subject land is situated near to National Highway and there are existing buildings of Tahsildar, MPDO Offices and BC Residential School nearby. In view of the findings given by the respondents, it was opined that the subject land can be better utilized for future needs of the Government. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the proposal sent by the 6th respondent on 11.07.2000 was returned by the 5th respondent by proceedings dated 17.08.2001 stating that the land was kept vacant without doing cultivation at the time of inspection conducted by him. It is further contended that the petitioners made a representation requesting the 2nd respondent to issue title deeds in respect of the subject lands during the year 2011. Upon which, the 2nd respondent called for a report from the 6th respondent and in furtherance thereto, a report was submitted on 23.07.2011 by the 6th respondent. Based on the said report, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 17.09.2011 directing the 6th respondent to initiate action and to resume the subject land for violation of conditions of DKT patta inasmuch as the subject land was not brought into cultivation within a period of three (3) years from the date of assignment. Based on the said report, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 17.09.2011 directing the 6th respondent to initiate action and to resume the subject land for violation of conditions of DKT patta inasmuch as the subject land was not brought into cultivation within a period of three (3) years from the date of assignment. It is further stated that as there was violation of conditions of DKT patta and the assignment made in favor of Sri Ananta Padmanabham was irregular, the respondents would submit that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. The petitioners filed reply affidavit stating that, only ground on which resumption order was passed, to allot the subject land in favor of Kasturiba Balikala Vidyalam. The petitioners have filed photographs showing that the said school was already constructed in a different land in the same village. Therefore, the respondents ought not to have passed resumption order against the petitioners. The petitioners further relied on circular dated 04.05.2022, issued by the 2nd respondent, whereunder, it is categorically stated that the assignment made in favor of Ex-Servicemen at any point of time shall not attract provisions of Act 9 of 1977. With the above pleadings and contentions, the learned Counsel for the petitioners prayed to allow the writ petition by setting aside the orders passed by the respondent Nos.3 to 5. 9. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 10. Perused the material available on record. 11. It is not in dispute that Sri Ananta Padmanabham was granted DKT patta on 22.11.1999 under Ex-Servicemen quota in respect of subject land. It is also not in dispute that, subsequent to the assignment made in his favor, pattadar passbooks were issued in favor of the 1st petitioner. On perusal of the show-cause notice dated 31.07.2011, it is clear that, the same was issued on the ground that the subject land was not brought into cultivation within a period of three (3) years from the date of assignment and apart from the same, the said notice was issued on yet another ground that, at the time of grant of D-Form patta, the classification of the subject land was not changed from grazing poramboke to AWD. It is further averred in the show-cause notice that, the proposals sent by the 6th respondent were returned. It is further averred in the show-cause notice that, the proposals sent by the 6th respondent were returned. It is not in dispute that the 1st petitioner submitted explanation through Advocate on 10.08.2011. In the said explanation the 1st petitioner specifically stated that, she and her husband have spent an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- for reclaiming the subject land and they also dug a bore well and conducted agricultural operations for four years by raising seasonal crops. In support of the said contention, copies of adangals for the faslis 1416 to 1419 are filed alongwith the writ petition, showing that the petitioners have raised groundnut crop during the said period and the same was reflected in the adangals. The 6th respondent, without considering the explanation offered by the 1st petitioner, rejected her case on the ground that the explanation offered by her was not convincing and directed that the subject land be resumed to Government for violation of Condition No.2 of DKT patta by order dated 28.08.2011. The said order of the 6th respondent tantamounts to violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the explanation offered by the 1st petitioner was not at all considered including the copies of adangals put forth by her evidencing the factum of cultivation for the fasli 1419. The said order was confirmed by the 5th respondent by order dated 01.02.2018, stating that the classification of the subject land was not changed from grazing poramboke to AWD at the time of grant of D-Form patta in favor of the original assignee. 12. Apart from the same, the 5th respondent in his order dated 01.02.2018, also stated that the subject land has got much potential value and the same was personally inspected by him and found that the land is covered with thorny bushes and pits and came to the conclusion that the land is not fit for cultivation. On careful perusal of the said order, it is clear that the 5th respondent entirely relied on the report dated 20.01.2008, furnished by the 6th respondent while passing the said order. On further perusal of the order passed by the 5th respondent, it is clear that the proceedings against the petitioners were initiated, on a letter dated 11.04.2011 addressed by the local peoples’ representative. On further perusal of the order passed by the 5th respondent, it is clear that the proceedings against the petitioners were initiated, on a letter dated 11.04.2011 addressed by the local peoples’ representative. In furtherance thereto, the 5th respondent issued instructions vide letter in RC.B1.1388/2011, dated 14.07.2011, to the 6th respondent to resume the subject land, inasmuch as, the same is required for allotment of Kasthurbha Devi Balikala Vidyalayam. 13. Further, on perusal of the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners, it is clear that the Kasturiba Balikala Vidyalam was already constructed in the said village on some other land. Therefore, the very initiation of proceedings against the petitioners is illegal and an inference can be drawn that, with a pre-meditated mind by pre-judging the entire issue the respondents proceeded with the matter. It is pertinent to mention that the letter addressed by local peoples’ representative dated 11.04.2011 was referred to in resumption order dated 28.08.2011, passed by the 6th respondent. Further, on perusal of the order dated 01.02.2018, passed by the 5th respondent, it is clear that, based on the said letter dated 14.07.2011, he instructed the 6th respondent to resume the subject land for the purpose of allotment to Kasturiba Balikala Vidyalam and thereafter the 6th respondent issued show-cause notice dated 31.07.2011 on flimsy grounds with a pre-meditated mind to resume the land. From the above it is clear that, the respondent Nos.4 & 5 pre-judged the entire issue before initiating action against the petitioners. As already stated, the said orders were confirmed by the 3rd respondent without adverting to the grounds raised by the petitioners. On perusal of the orders under challenge, it is succinctly clear that none of the respondents have given reasons for resuming the land of the petitioners except stating that the petitioners have violated Condition No.2 of DKT patta. 14. The other ground taken by the respondents is that, by proceedings dated 17.08.2001, the 5th respondent returned the proposals for change of classification of the subject land from grazing poramboke to AWD. A copy of the said proceedings is filed alongwith the counter-affidavit. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the reason for returning the proposal was that the land was not brought into cultivation. The 5th respondent came to such conclusion based on inspection said to have been conducted by him on 27.07.2001. A copy of the said proceedings is filed alongwith the counter-affidavit. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the reason for returning the proposal was that the land was not brought into cultivation. The 5th respondent came to such conclusion based on inspection said to have been conducted by him on 27.07.2001. Nothing is placed on record to show that any notice was issued to the petitioners before undertaking such inspection. Further, no panchanama is filed to show that such inspection was actually carried out by the 5th respondent on the said date. In the absence of any notice to the petitioners and panchanama drawn in that regard, the alleged inspection conducted by the 5th respondent cannot be believed. Apart from the same, change of classification of the land is exclusively within the domain of the respondents, merely because the classification is not changed, the same cannot be put against the petitioners at this distance of time. Further, if the change of classification is not done, it is not known as to how the subject land was proposed for allotment in favor of Kasturiba Balikala Vidyalam. From the above it is clear that the respondents are blowing hot and cold in the matter. 15. The impugned orders were passed on the ground that, the subject land is situated near the National Highway and offices of Tahsildar, MPDO and BC Residential School are located nearby and therefore, the land has got much potential value and the same is required for public purpose. The said finding of the respondents is liable to be rejected and set aside, inasmuch as, the potential value of the land has absolutely no role to play in the matter and what is to be seen is whether the subject land is capable for assignment as on the date of grant of DKT patta or not and the respondents cannot take into consideration the subsequent developments happened in the vicinity, due to which the potential value of the subject land is increased. The said approach of the respondents is unknown to law. Though the respondents strenuously contend that, by virtue of proceedings dated 17.08.2001, issued by the 5th respondent, the assignment made in favor of the petitioners is irregular. The said approach of the respondents is unknown to law. Though the respondents strenuously contend that, by virtue of proceedings dated 17.08.2001, issued by the 5th respondent, the assignment made in favor of the petitioners is irregular. The said contention cannot be countenanced inasmuch as, the same will not stand to judicial scrutiny in the absence of notice to the petitioners and there was no panchanama drawn to that effect. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention that though the said proceedings were issued in the year 2001, nothing is forthcoming as to why no action was initiated against the petitioners. 16. Be that as it may as already noted supra, the basis for initiation of action against the petitioners was letter dated 11.04.2011 addressed by the local peoples’ representative. Upon which, the 5th respondent by proceedings in RC.B1.1388/2011 dated 14.07.2011 instructed the 6th respondent to initiate resumption proceedings against the petitioners. The same is evident on careful perusal of orders dated 20.01.2018 and 01.02.2018 passed by the respondent Nos.6 & 5 respectively. Therefore the entire action of the respondents is tainted with malice and therefore the orders under challenge are liable to be set aside. 17. It is not out of place to mention that the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration issued circular vide CCLA’s Lr.No.Assn-I(1)/350/2022 dated 04.05.2022 whereby and whereunder it is clarified at Para No.6 that “no assignment made to Ex-Servicemen, at any point of time, shall attract the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, however reiterated that no alienation is permitted in case of lands assigned to Ex-Servicemen/ Serving Soldiers within ten (10) years of assignment”. It is further clarified in the said circular that “all assignments made to Ex-Servicemen, at whatever point of time where they have been made, shall be alienated ten (10) years after the date of assignment”. From the above circular it is clear that once an assignment is made in favor of Ex-Servicemen, the same shall be alienable after a period of ten (10) years. In the instant case, patta was granted in favor of original assignee on 22.11.1999, whereas the proceedings were initiated by issuance of notice dated 31.07.2011 i.e., after a period of ten (10) years from the date of issuance of D-from patta. Therefore, the respondents do not have any power to initiate action against the petitioners after completion of ten (10) years. Therefore, the respondents do not have any power to initiate action against the petitioners after completion of ten (10) years. Further, after the period of ten (10) years from the date of assignment, the lands assigned will loose the character of Government land and it would become the absolute property of the person to whom it was assigned. Further it is not out of place to mention that the lands assigned to an Ex-Serviceman cannot be equated with that of the lands assigned to land less poor persons inasmuch as assignment made in favor of Ex-Serviceman is to see that his life is secured after his discharge from the Army. Apart from the same, Ex-Serviceman is entitled to such assignment as a matter of right for the services rendered by him to the country. Whereas, the assignment made in favor of land less poor person is completely on a different footing so as to provide him livelihood. 18. It is pertinent to mention the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No.1117, Revenue (Assignment.I) Dept, dated 11.11.1993, in partial modification to G.O. Ms. No.743(B) Dept., dated 30.04.1993, making it further clear that after a period of ten (10) years from the date of assignment made in favor of Ex-Serviceman, they are free to sell away the lands assigned in their favor, thereby protecting the right over the said lands. From the said GO it is clear that the respondents are precluded from taking up any action against the petitioners after the said period is over. Admittedly in the instant case the assignment made in the year 1999 and show-cause notice was issued on 31.07.2011. Therefore, the very initiation of action against the petitioners is liable to be interdicted and set aside. 19. For the foregoing reasons the orders under challenge passed by respondent Nos.3, 5 & 6 on 01.02.2021, 01.02.2018 & 28.08.2011, respectively are set aside and accordingly the writ petition is allowed. 20. With the above directions the present writ petition is allowed. 21. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.