IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 21398 of 2001 Between: Yedla Adivaiah S/o Rangaiah R/o Range Samudram ( Yellampally) Village, Farooq Nagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Domalguda, Hyderabad. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shahabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 The Station House Officer, P.S. Shahabad Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the action of the respondents 3 and 4 herein in passing the Proc. No.B/2031/97, dt. 4- 7-1997 with anti-date, without notice to petitioner and also cancellation of original assignment of Kondaiah etc. without notice to the petitioner as the petitioner is in possession of the land to an extent of Ac. 4.00 in Sy.No.287 (287/1 to 3) situated at Manmaory Village, Shahabad Mandal, R.R. District and issuing of pattas to beneficiaries behind the back of petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice apart from violative of Art. 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and SET ASIDE the same with consequential direction not to dispossess the petitioner from his agricultural land without due process of law or notice/hearing and else direct the 5th Respondent to give police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MRK.M.MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.21398 OF 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents more particularly the action of respondents 3 and 4, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shahabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in passing proceedings No.B/2031/97, dated 4-7-1997 with ante-date without notice to the petitioner and cancellation of original assignment of Kondaiah etc. without notice to the petitioner, as he is in possession of the land to an extent of Ac.4.00 in Survey No.287 (287/1 to 3) situated at Manmarry Village, Shahabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and issuing of pattas to beneficiaries behind the back of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, apart from violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same with consequential direction to respondents 1 to 4 not to dispossess the petitioner from his agricultural land without due process of law or notice, and also direct the 5th respondent to give Police protection to the life and property of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has purchased the land in question in an extent of Ac.4.00 in Survey No.287 (287/1 to 3), situated at Manmarry Village, Shahabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under a registered sale deed dated 25.3.1975 from one i) Kondaiah s/o Venkaiah, ii) Sayanna s/o.Antaiah and iii) Laxmaiah s/o.Yellaiah, and consequent to the said sale transaction, he has been put in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. The name of the petitioner has been incorporated in the revenue records with effect from 5.2.1991. When the respondent authorities have sought to interfere with the possession of the petitioner's land, he got issued a legal notice 30.11.1998 to the fourth respondent stating that he had purchased the land in question for valid consideration and is a bonafide purchaser and is also a landless poor person and is in possession and enjoyment of the land in question. It is also stated in the notice that when third parties tried to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land in question, he filed O.S.No.65 of 1997 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella for perpetual injunction restraining defendants therein from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the suit schedule property. It is also stated that along with the suit, he also filed I.A.No.199 of 1997 seeking temporary injunction and the same was granted on 27.6.1997. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner also filed I.A.No.189 of 1999 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and to identify the nature of the suit schedule land, and the same was allowed. The Advocate Commissioner had visited the site in question and submitted his report stating that the suit land is divided into different bunds for the purpose of cultivation, and also part of the land is covered with Jawar gross (Soppa). Ultimately, the learned Junior Civil Judge decreed the suit. 4. It is further submitted that the respondents have not responded to the legal notice dated 30.11.1998 issued by the petitioner. But they tried to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question in the year 2001 which made the petitioner to file this writ petition. It is also stated that the respondent authorities wanted to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question under the guise of proceedings, which were said to have been issued on 4.7.1997, and a copy of which was not served on the petitioner. Therefore, while filing the writ petition, the petitioner has filed application to dispense with the filing of proceedings dated 4.7.1997 and the same was ordered. Then the writ petition was admitted by this court on 12.10.2001 and on that day, interim direction was granted directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question without following the due process of law pending disposal of the writ petition. 5. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed stating that the land in question is an assigned land and the assignees have contravened the conditions of assignment and therefore, it is a Government land. It is further stated that the petitioner has no right over the land in question and he is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is also a landless poor person as defined under Clause 3 of Section 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’’). He further submitted that the petitioner has purchased the land under registered sale deed dated 25.3.1975. Even assuming without admitting that the land in question is a Government land, his rights have been protected under sub section 5 of Section 3 of the Act which reads as under: “Nothing in this Section shall apply to an assigned land which was purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of this Act and which is in the possession of such person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site on the date of such commencement.” 7. The learned counsel submited that a notice as prescribed under the Act has not been issued to the petitioner. He further submitted that though authorities have sought to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question under the guise of proceedings dated 4.7.1997, when the petitioner made an application seeking for a certified copy of the said proceedings on 9.10.2006, the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chevella has issued a memo dated 24.11.2006 stating that no such proceedings available in relation to land in question. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact, no proceedings have been issued against the land in question. The respondent authorities more particularly, the officials of the fourth respondent are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question without any proceedings. He also submitted that mere statement of the respondent authorities that it is a Government Land does not confer any right on the Government without there being any basis. More over, the petitioner is a landless poor person under sub-section 5 of Section 3 of the Act. Since the petitioner himself is a landless poor person and having purchased the land in question for a valid consideration in a good faith, his rights cannot be taken away without following the due process of law. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have not followed the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and therefore, the whole action of the respondents is in violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner is the purchaser of land in question. The petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction against third parties, when they tried to dispossess him and the civil court has adjudicated the matter in favour of the petitioner by passing decree and judgment. When the respondent officials sought to interfere with the land of the petitioner, he issued a legal notice bringing all the facts to the notice of the respondent authorities but there was no response from them to the said legal notice. Further when the respondents were acting upon the alleged proceedings dated 4.7.1997 said to have been issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer-fourth respondent, the petitioner made representation requesting the Mandal Revenue Officer to furnish a copy of the said proceedings, but the Mandal Revenue Officer issued a Memo stating that there is no such proceedings available. The writ petition is filed with an application to dispense with the proceedings dated 4.7.1997 and the same was ordered. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are any such proceedings in force. Under these circumstances, it can be said without any hesitation that there are no such proceedings in view of the memo issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Therefore, the whole action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, if it is the case of the respondent authorities that the land in question is a Government land and it was assigned in favour of the assignees who sold the same in favour of the petitioner, this order does not preclude the respondent authorities from initiating appropriate action by following the due process of law, if they so advised. 9. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 09-04-2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SRAVAN}