THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.29038 of 2009 (Dated: 31-12-2012) Between: Gadiraju Lakshmikumari W/o Venkata Subba Raju West Godavari District …Petitioner A n d The District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.29038 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by Gadiraju Lakshmi kumari seeking mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of land admeasuring Ac.0-49 cents in Survey No.210/1C, Ac.0.49 cents in Sy.No.210/1D, Ac.1.00 cents in Survey No.211/1B and an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.211/1C totaling an extent of Ac.2.98 cents of agricultural lands in Pydichinthapadu village, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District without following due process of law, is arbitrary and illegal. 2. The petitioner is the wife of Venkata Subba Raju. Her husband purchased Ac.0-49 cents in Survey No.210/1C, Ac.0.49 cents in Sy.No.210/1D, Ac.1.00 cents in Survey No.211/1B and an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.211/1C totaling an extent of Ac.2.98 cents from V.Venkateswara Rao under registered sale deed dated 11.7.1991. Her husband was in possession and enjoyment of the said lands till the year 2001. In the year 2001, her husband left the house and since then his whereabouts are not known. From the year 2001, she has been cultivating the lands with the help of her father-in-law. Her husband mortgaged the land to Vysya Bank Ltd., Visakoderu branch in the year 2001. He paid some instalments and thereafter committed default. The Vysya Bank Ltd., Visakoderu branch filed O.S.No.335 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram for recovery of the loan amount and the said suit is pending. While so, in month of October 2009, the staff of revenue authorities came to the land and insisted her to vacate the land as the lands belong to the Government. It is her case that she has not been put on notice as contemplated under the provisions of A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, “ the Act”). Therefore, the action of the respondents in taking steps to evict her from the lands without passing any order and without conducting any enquiry is contrary to the law and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence this writ petition assailing the action of the respondents in forcing her to vacate the lands in her occupation. 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 31.12.2009. An interim direction came to be issued on the even date to the official respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the lands Ac.0-49 cents in Survey No.210/1C, Ac.0.49 cents in Sy.No.210/1D, Ac.1.00 cents in Survey No.211/1B and an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.211/1C situated at Pydichintapadu (v), Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District without following due process of law, vide W.P.M.P.No.37662 of 2009. 4. Respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed W.V.M.P.No.1363 of 2010 with a prayer to vacate the interim order granted in W.P.M.P.No.37662 of 2009. 5. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 6. The counter of respondents 1 to 3, in brief, is:- (a) An extent of 10.91 cents comprising R.S.Nos.210, 211, 212, 213 and 214 was classified as Government dry in Pydichintapadu village of Eluru Mandal as the same was surrendered by the declarant towards his excess land under the provisions of Land Reforms Act. After taking possession of the said lands, the same has been allotted to the landless poor as mentioned below:- Sl.No. Classification R.S.No. Extent Ac. cts 1 Sri Bantumilli Bapuji S/o Tirumala Rao 211/1C 1.00 Wet 2 Sri Ghantasala Banu S/o Marayya 214/2B 1.03 Wet 3 S r i Nallamilli Raghavulu 210/1A,1B 0.96 Wet 4 S r i Penumala Lokaraju S/o China Tirupati 210/1C, 1D 0.98 Wet 5 C h i n t a l a Venkata Ratnam S/o Nagabhushanam 213/1A 1.00 Wet 6 S r i Penumala Bhushanam S/o Tatayya 211/1B 1.00 Wet 7 Yella Naganna S/o Narasayya 212/1A, 1B 1.00 Wet 8 Mungara Brahmaiah S/o Chintayya 214/2A 1.02 Wet 9 M u n g a r a Koti Nageswara Rao S/o Venkayya 213/1B 1.00 Wet 10 Penumala Paramatmudu S/o China Tirupati 210/1E 211/1A 212/1E 0.92 Wet 11 Pallem Lazaru S/o Pra 212/1C, 1D 1.00 Wet (b) The assignees alienated the lands to third parties, namely, Indukuri Subba Raju. Proceedings have been initiated for restoration of the assigned lands by issuing Form No.1 notice to original assignees and Form No.2 to the alienee. Since the alienee was stated to be residing in Hyderabad, notice could not be served on him. The Tahsildar, Eluru passed resumption orders vide Proceeding No.553/2007, Dt.20.8.2007. The land admeasuring Ac.2.98 cents in R.S.Nos.210/1C, 1D and 211/1B and 1C of Pydichintapudu village was taken possession by the Mandal Revenue Inspector on 22.7.2007. The original assignees filed an appeal against the order passed by the Tahsildar, Eluru before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru. The Revenue Divisional Officer considered the appeal of the assignees and ordered restoration of the land to them, vide Proceedings No.D.13/07, dt.29.12.2007. Pursuant to the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, the Tahsildar, Eluru restored the land to the original assignees. The petitioner has no title nor she is in possession and therefore, no notice need to be served on her. Even the entries in the Adangal and 10(1) Account do not reflect of the petitioner being owner or possessor of the lands in question. 7. The petitioner filed reply affidavit. It is stated in the reply affidavit that there is no person by name Indukuri Subbaraju in Pydichintapadu village. It is further stated in the reply affidavit that if the official respondents could not serve Form No.1 notice on Indukuri Subbaraju, they could have conducted other modes of service of notice. Even otherwise, Form-I notice was served on the original assignees on 13.9.2007 whereas the order was passed on 20.8.2007 and therefore, the order of resumption could not be stated to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. For better appreciation, I may refer para (4) of the reply affidavit and it is thus:- “ In reply to para 4, it is submitted that the 4th respondent has got lands more than 40 acres of land adjacent to the lands covered by Survey Numbers 210, 211, 212, 213 and 214 in Pydichinthapalli village. It is learnt that the 4th respondent came to know that these lands were assigned to the Schedule caste persons in the village. In fact against the several resumption orders passed by the 3rd respondent, no original assignee preferred appeal to the 2nd respondent and as per the counter affidavit it is also not known which original assignee filed the appeal against which resumption order. Thereafter pursuant to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent dated 29-12-2007, it is not known the respondents have restored which land to which assignee. No details were given by the respondents. In the revenue records, i.e., either in the Adangal or in 10(1) account, the name of the 4th respondent was not mentioned. Therefore the 4th respondent with the connivance of the official respondents and with his political background, tried to encroach the lands. As the subject matter of the lands belong to the Government, the assignee has got right to enjoy the same. If the purchaser with the bona fide intention and with good faith purchased the lands, his possession should have been protected as per the Sub-Section 5 of Section 3 of A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. In spite the fact that the 4th respondent was made as one of the respondent, he did not file any counter affidavit. Therefore this Hon’ble Court ought to have interfered and protect the interest of petitioner and allow the writ petition. Otherwise the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury”. The writ petitioner filed WPMP No.42572 of 2012 seeking leave to file additional affidavit. The said W.P.M.P came to be allowed on 28.12.2012. The petitioner stated in the additional affidavit that Vungara Kanaka Lingeswara Rao purchased the lands from the original assignees viz., Bantumilli Bapuji, Penumalla Loka Raju and Penumalla Bhushanam under registered sale deeds, dated 05.06.1986 and subsequently the said Vungara Kanaka Lingeswara Rao executed a registered sale deed on 11.07.1991 in favour of her husband Gadiraju Venkata Subba Raju in respect of the assigned lands admeasuring Ac.2.98 cents. 8. Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel contends that the husband of the petitioner is in possession of the land admeasuring Ac.2-98 cents and since her husband left home in 2001 without any intimation, she has been cultivating the lands with the support of her father-in-law and therefore, she deserves to be put on notice in case she is to be evicted from the lands on the ground that the alienation of land in favour of her husband is in violation of the provisions of the Act. It is also contended by him that since the husband of the petitioner purchased the land in good faith and as he is landless poor, sale in favour of her husband is saved from the provisions of the Act. It is also contended by him that there is no person by name Indukuri Subbaraju and therefore, notice sought to be served on a non- existing person cannot be said to be in tune with the provisions of the Act. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in K.Sriramachandra Murthy Raju v. The State of A.P.[1] and judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in E.Karunakar Reddy v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Rural Mandal[2]. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the assignees were put on notice in Form No.1 whereas the notice in Form No.II was sought to be served on the alienee, namely, Indukuri Subbaraju and as his whereabouts were not known, notice could not be served. It is also contended by the learned Government Pleader that the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act has been followed in resuming the assigned land and thereafter, the same lands came to be restored to the original assignees, pursuant to the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, on appeal presented by the assignees. It is also contended by him that since the procedure contemplated under the Act has been followed, the petitioner, who is neither the owner nor possessor of the land covered under resumption orders cannot be permitted to assail the said orders on the ground of principles of natural justice. 10. Learned Government Pleader produced the entire file relating to resumption orders passed by the Tahsildar, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District-3rd respondent. I have gone through the entire file comprising 177 pages. The Tahsildar, Eluru Mandal initiated proceedings for resumption of the assigned land as the assignees alienated the land in contravention of the provisions of the Act. He issued Form No.1 notice to the assignees and Form No.2 notice to the alienee, namely, Indukuri Subba Raju as well as Goli Rama Rao-4th respondent herein. Notice to Indukuri Subbaraju could not be served as he was stated to have left the village and his address particulars were not known. 11. Form No.1 notice came to be issued to the following persons:- 1) Nallamilli Raghavulu 2) Penumala Loka Raju 3) Penumala Paramathmudu 4) Penumala Bhushanam 5) Bantumilli Bapuji 6) Yalla Naganna 7) Pallem Luzer 8) Vhitala Venkata Ratnam 9) Mungara Koti Lingeswara Rao 10) Mungara Brahmayya 11) Ghantasala Bhanu 12) Pallem George 13) Moru Rampandu 14) Mungara Kantha Rao 15) Sydu Jayanthi Babu 16) Penumala Tirupathi Rao 17) Daggumilli Adam 18) Nallumilli Mohana Rao 12. The Mandal Revenue Officer passed resumption orders after issuing notice and after considering the report of the Village Revenue Officer, dated 16.04.2007. The original assignees challenged the resumption order by filing an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the appeal filed by them came to be allowed restoring the lands to the possession of the original assignees. The petitioner claims that her husband purchased the lands from Kanaka Lingeswara Rao and was in possession of the lands till he left the house in the year 2001 and thereafter, the lands continued to be in her occupation. The only document filed by the petitioner to speak of her possession is the Adangal copies up dated as on January, 2004. The name of neither the petitioner nor her husband appeared in the possessory column of No.2 Adangal. In the absence of any material to speak of the possession of the petitioner or her husband, it cannot be said that the respondents are contemplating to dispossess her without following the due process of law. When the petitioner failed to substantiate her plea of possession over the land in dispute, no relief could be granted to her to protect her possession under the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, I find that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:31st December, 2012. RAR/CS [1] 1997(1) (A.P) 138 Law Summary [2] 2001(1) ALT 400