HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6982 of 2008 Date : 24.06.2011 Between : Nadikoppu Lakshmi Veeramma & others. …..Petitioners And The District Collector, Nellore District & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6982 of 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners seek directions by way of Mandamus, holding that the action of Tahsildar, Udayagiri Mandal, Nellore District, in allotting their land to third parties, to an extent of Ac.2.02 cents in Sy.No.1229/1 and Ac.2.97 cents in Sy.No.1229/2 of Kondayapalem village of Udayagiri Mandal in Nellore District without paying compensation to them and without invoking the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioners that on 05.12.1997, petitioner No.1 was assigned an extent of Ac.2.02 cents of land in Sy.No.1229/1 and on 15.10.1997, petitioner No.2 was assigned an extent of Ac.2.97 cents in Sy.No.1229/2 of Kondayapalem village of Udayagiri Mandal in Nellore District. It is the case of the petitioners that they have developed the land subsequent to assignment, but the Mandal Revenue officer, Udayagiri Mandal, has issued the show cause notice, dated 19.11.2005, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the resumption order should not be made against them, alleging that they have not brought the land under cultivation within the prescribed period of three years after assignment. It is the case of the petitioners that inspite of filing explanation to the said show cause notice, no orders have been passed by the respondents, and on the other hand, the respondents are taking steps to allot the very same land as house sites to third parties. Questioning the proposed action of respondents to allot land to third parties without paying compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, this writ petition was filed on 31.03.2008. The Tahsildar, Udayagiri Mandal, has filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the counter, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 19.11.2005, petitioners have failed to file any explanation within time, as such, the order, dated 6th December 2005, was passed for resumption of land to Government. It is stated that as against the order of resumption, there is right of appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, but the petitioners have not questioned the order of resumption and filed the present writ petition. In the counter, it is stated that the resumption orders are passed as the petitioners have violated condition No.2 of the conditions for grant of D-Form patta, and thereafter, by spending an amount of Rs.1,42,158/-, respondents have cleared the land by removing the bushes, plants etc., and in the very same land, house sites were granted to 506 beneficiaries and possession was delivered to plot owners on 7th of January 2007. It is stated that as much as the resumption order is already passed and the possession of house sites was also given to the beneficiaries on 7th of January 2007, petitioners are not entitled for grant of any relief, and therefore, prayed for dismissal of writ petition. In this writ petition, although it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that there is no order of resumption, it is difficult to accept such contention advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners. In the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, it is clearly averred that pursuant to the show cause notice, when the petitioners have failed to file explanation, the order dated 6th December 2005, was passed for resumption of land in question to the Government. It is to be noticed that the resumption order was passed on 6th of December 2005, and thereafter, it is stated that the land was already cleared by spending an amount of Rs.1,42,158/- and the same is allotted for house sites to 506 beneficiaries on 7th of January 2007 and possession was also delivered to them, and though the writ petition is filed in the month of March 2008, such beneficiaries are not impleaded as party-respondents. In the absence of questioning the resumption orders and the consequential assignment in favour of third parties by handing over possession on 7th of January 2007, no relief can be granted as prayed for in this writ petition. Though the learned counsel for petitioners has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of LAO- cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division Vs. Mekala Pandu[1], the ratio decided by the Larger Bench in the aforesaid judgment will not support the plea of petitioners in the present case. In this case, it is to be noticed that the land assigned was not simply resumed for any public purpose, but on the specific allegation of violation of condition of grant of D-Form patta, resumption orders were passed. It is not in dispute that when D-Form pattas are issued subject to condition that the land assigned is to be brought under cultivation within a period of three years of grant, and when proceedings are initiated alleging that the petitioners did not bring the land under cultivation within the aforesaid three years and thus violated the conditions of grant and resumption orders are passed on the aforesaid ground, the ratio decided by this Court in the aforesaid judgment will not support the contention of the petitioners in this writ petition. Further, as the resumption is not under challenge and the subsequent assignees are not made parties to the writ petition, no relief can be granted as prayed for in this writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the resumption orders, dated 6th December 2005, or the consequential allotments made in favour of third parties, this order will not preclude the petitioners from questioning such proceedings in appropriate forum. No costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th June 2011 ajr [1] 2004(2) ALD 451 (LB)