IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 24120 of 2002 Between: 1 G.Narasimha S/o Nagaiah Sy. NO. 282/1 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 2 G.Laxmaiah S/o Mutaiah Sy. NO. 282/2 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 3 Smt. G.Laxmamma W/o Pentaiah Sy. NO. 282/3 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 4 G.Mallesh S/o Balaiah Sy. NO. 287/3 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 5 Babaiah S/o Yellaiah Sy. NO. 291/1 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 6 G.Sattaiah S/o Jangaiah Sy. NO. 283/3 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 7 G.Venkatesh S/o Swamy Sy. NO. 297/2 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 8 N.Eswaraiah S/o Samaiah Sy. NO. 290/2 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 9 B.Ramu S/o Lakshmaiah Sy. NO. 272/6 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 10 Samaiah S/o Balaiah Sy. NO. 287/5 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 11 G.Yellaiah G.Balaiah Sy. NO. 283/4 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 12 K.Kistaiah S/o Yenkaiah Sy. NO. 285/4 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 13 K.Yadaiah S/o Yenkaiah Sy. NO. 285/5 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 14 K.Bal Raj S/o Lakshmaiah Sy. NO. 286/4 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 15 K.Lingaiah, S/o Lakshmaiah Sy. NO. 282/1 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 16 M.Manemma W/o Somaiah Sy. NO. 286/2 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 17 Susheela W/o Mannaiah Sy. NO. 296/2 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 18 K.Yellamma W/o K.Balraj, Sy. NO. 286/3 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 19 G.Narasamma W/o Gopaiah Sy. NO. 284/2 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 20 K.Yadamma W/o Devayya Kaiah Sy. NO. 291/2 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 21 A.S.Attaiah S/o Balaiah Sy. NO. 285/3 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 22 K.Narasimloo S/o Muttaiah Sy. NO. 297/3 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 23 Venkatesh S/o Jangaiah Sy. NO. 296/3 of Badvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chavel Division, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy 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 rule nisi calling for the records leading upto and inclusive of the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent herein in his proceedings No.D/3301/2000 dt: 15-11-2002, in respect of the land in Survey Nos. 282 to 289 with Sud Divisions as per the allotment, situated at Budvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, and quash the proceedings of the 1st Respondent dt: 15-11-2002 by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari Counsel for the Petitioner:MRSYED SHAREEF AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Oral order: This writ petition is directed against the order of the 1st respondent dated 15-11- 2002 bearing reference No. D/3301/2000, in purported exercise of appellate power under Section 4-A of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the 1977 Act’). The 23 petitioners challenge the 1st respondent’s order on several grounds. According to the petitioners, the owners of the land in Sy.Nos. 282 to 289 of Budvel village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy District filed declarations under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the 1973 Act.’). The primary Tribunal by its order dated 27-6-1977 determined surplus land holding to an extent of Ac.289, and declared the surplus to have vested in the State to be disposed of in terms of Section 14 of the 1973 Act. The petitioners belonging to the Scheduled Caste community were allotted the excess land of the declarants, under the provisions of 1973 Act. Some are legal representatives of allottees. They claim to have been allotted extents ranging from 2-00 acres to 4-00 acres by the concerned Tahasildar in 1979. They state to have paid the value of the land in instalments without default. Petitioners further assert that pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in their favour and they are cultivating the land after investing considerable amounts and labour. The 1st respondent issued a notice dated 19-11-1997 alleging that the petitioners had alienated the lands assigned and that the petitioners failed to put the land to cultivation. The specific allegation in the notice dated 19-11-1997 is that the petitioners made plots and sold the same to SK Developers and thus contravened the provisions of assignment, under Section 14 of the 1973 Act. A notice was issued under Section 14 (5) of the 1973 Act. The petitioners assert that notices were not communicated and they were sought to be dispossessed. They nevertheless filed W.P.No. 8612 of 2000 assailing the notice dated 19-11-1997. By the order dated 29- 9-2000, W.P.No.8612 of 2000 was disposed of setting aside the said notice and permitting the petitioners to submit explanations within the stipulated time and directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioners filed a joint explanation denying the allegations. They submitted written submissions 29-10-2002 through counsel, clearly asserting that they had not parted with the land nor alienated the same to any person. The 1st respondent in considerable confusion as to the nature of the exercise he was to undertake, proceeded to draft the order impugned herein on the premise that he was dealing with an appeal filed under Section 4-A of the 1977 Act. It is fairly conceded by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that the impugned order is not an appellate order by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rangareddy District, but is a primary order relatable to the power available under Section 4 of the Act. The 1st respondent in the order impugned concluded that the petitioners being allottees of land under the provisions of the 1973 Act had sold assigned land in violation of the conditions, by sub-dividing the land into plots and in contravention of the provisions of the 1977 Act. A perusal of the order shows that except recording the fact that the land is sub-divided into plots, perhaps meaning thereby that there are some measure of boundaries drawn out of the larger extents of lands, there is no other material on the basis of which the 1st respondent is seen to have recorded the conclusion that the petitioners sold away assigned land. The 1st respondent does not record that the petitioners had executed any sale deeds and got them registered as required under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or had executed even white paper conveyance or notarized sale deeds in favour of any person or institution. This conclusion of the 1st respondent is a free floating ipsi dixit not substrated by any fact, is based on fertile imagination and is perverse. With regard to the second conclusion, as to the failure of the petitioners to put the lands to cultivation, the 1st respondent again records that the assignment is meant for landless poor persons and meant for cultivation but and the petitioners never cultivated but have put the same for uses than then agriculture. The conclusion as to the failure to cultivate is seen to be an inference from the other conclusion that the petitioners sub-divided the land and have thus alienated. As the 1st respondent was asserting violation of the conditions of assignment/allotment by the petitioners, normatively the burden of establishing the allegation is on the 1st respondent. The order impugned contains no material either for the conclusion that the petitioners alienated the land, nor for the other conclusion that the petitioners failed to cultivate the land. As the Revenue Divisional Officer of the area concerned, the 1st respondent the means, power, authority and jurisdiction to verify the revenue records to ascertain whether there was cultivation in the lands. The 1st respondent instead of ascertaining and recording relevant and material fracts, pursued the easy path of recording ipsi dixit conclusions. The conclusion that the petitioners violated the conditions impacts the petitioners adversely with civil consequences and deprives them of their rights. The petitioners assert that they paid the value of the land in instalments without any default. Recording a conclusion of violation and therefore leading to cancellation of the assignment must be a careful and serious exercise. The 1st respondent miserably failed to measure up to the standards required of such determination. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order of the 1st respondent bearing reference No. D/3301/2000 dated 15-11-2002 is unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. The State has identified the 1st respondent as the competent authority to exercise quasi judicial powers under Section 4 of the 1977 Act and has thus professed a relevant level of competence in the 1st respondent to exercise the power conferred. The 1st respondent has passed a very casual and irrelevant order and thereby not only constrained the petitioners to pursue an avoidable legal remedy but has also added to the considerable docket load of this Court. The State must consider the urgent need for imparting quasi judicial training to its officers before entrusting such functions For the aforesaid reasons, this Court considers it appropriate to impose costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred) payable by the 1st respondent to the petitioners. It is however, open to the State or the appropriate agency to determine the liability of the officer whose negligence and casual approach to statutory and quasi judicial functions has mulcted the public exchequer with the above costs and to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of the amount. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 30th April, 2008 GRR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies