IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1019 of 2002 Between: R.Arjun Reddy S/o.R.Umapathi Reddy R/o.Tatipally village, Munipalli Mandal, Medak Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Medak District, Sangareddy. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Munipally Mandal, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue notice, call for all the records and quash the orders passed by the First Respondent herein in ﬁle no.F3/160/Asst/75-F3/4943/95, dt.26-9-2001 in canceling and setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent in ﬁle No.B/1197/87, dt.26-10-1989, by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case and to allow this Writ Petition with costs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.MAHIPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 26.09.2001, whereby respondent No.1 set aside the order of respondent No.2. An extent of 18 guntas of land in Survey No.196 of Tatipally Village, Munipally Mandal, Medak District was surrendered by its owner Sri R.Jagannatha Reddy, who is claimed to be the uncle of the petitioner. On the ground that an agricultural well is situate on the surrendered land and that the same is surrounded by the petitioner’s property on three sides, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 to sell the land to him on payment of market value. A similar application was made by three others. However, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer vide his letter dated 14.09.1987 recommended for grant of patta to the petitioner on payment of market value. In pursuance of the said recommendation, respondent No.2 vide his order dated 26.10.1989 directed alienation of the said land in favour of the petitioner on payment of Rs.4,000/- per acre. Questioning the said order, Smt.Papamma ﬁled a revision petition under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli before respondent No.1. By order, dated 26.09.2001, respondent No.1 allowed the said revision petition and set aside the order passed by respondent No.2. At the hearing, Sri K.Mahipathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 ordered for alienation of the land in favour of the petitioner by taking into consideration the facts that the well is situate on the said land and that the same was mistakenly surrendered by his uncle thinking that the well is actually situate on the land belonging to the petitioner and that the surrendered well was not ﬁt for carrying on agriculture. In his order respondent No.1 stated that under Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’) and Rule 10 of the Rules made thereunder, the surplus land acquired under the Act can be either allotted to land less poor as per the prescribed distribution criteria or reserved for a public purpose. He further stated that neither the petitioner nor Smt.Papamma come under the category of land less poor persons. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not deny the fact that there is no speciﬁc provision by which respondent No.2 had power to sell the property, which was surrendered by the surplus land holder under the provisions of the Act, for any purpose other than the purposes mentioned under Section 14 of the Act and Rule 10 of the Rules made thereunder. This being the admitted position, irrespective of the reasons for which respondent No.2 alienated the land to the petitioner on payment of market value, such an action is beyond the powers of respondent No.2. Therefore, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the order of respondent No.1 canceling the order passed by respondent No.2. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.11.2008 va