IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.15063 of 1997 Between: Ponnaganti Ragamma W/o. Chennaiah R/o. Alimli Village, Balayapalli Mandal, Nellore dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Nellore, Nellore Dist. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Balayapalli Mandal, Nellore 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 issue a Writ, Order or Direction more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Notice in Form-I in Rc.B.1431/96 dt. 17-3-1997 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balayapalli Mandal, Nellore District as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and void and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. M. P. CHANDRAMOULI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.15063 of 1997 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Notice in Form-I in Rc.B.1431/96, dated 17-3-1997 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balayapalli Mandal, Nellore District and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband - late Ponnaganti Chennaiah – was assigned an extent of Ac.4.02 cts of dry land in Sy.Nos.141/2 and 141/4 of Alimili village, Balayapalli Mandal, Nellore District, by an Order dated 31-1-1968 of the 2nd respondent, since he was a landless poor. Her husband brought the land under cultivation from the year 1970 and had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. After his death, herself and her sons are cultivating the land. While so, at the instance of some political leaders, 2nd respondent issued notice dated 1-12-1996 in Form-I stating that she had alienated the land in violation of Section 3(2) of Act 9 of 1977 and to show cause as to why the land should not be resumed. She submitted her reply dated 11-12-1996 stating that the land was not alienated to anybody and that she is cultivating the same. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer sent a reply dated 21-1-1997 stating that the assignee died 10 years back leaving behind his wife-Ragamma, the assignee or his legal heirs have not brought the land into cultivation, the said Ragamma sold away a part of the land to one Venkateswara Raju, who started a School, but it did not function and she also sold Ac.1.06 cts in Sy.No.141/3 to one Malakala Suseelamma, who raised blackgram in 1406 Fasli, the land is suitable for construction of houses, and for non-cultivating the land within 3 faslies from the date of grant, the Government can resume the land. She submitted another reply on 31-3-1997. After receipt of the said reply, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned notice dated 17-3- 1997 reiterating the same allegations as mentioned in the earlier notice dated 1-12- 1996. According to the petitioner, the impugned notice is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Due to political factions in the village, the impugned notice was got issued and the allegation of non-cultivation is only a camouflage to dispossess her from the land. Further, without following the procedure prescribed by law, the land cannot be given for house sites and she cannot be dispossessed. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner, particularly the political interference or revenue officials involvement for evicting the petitioner from the land. It is stated inter alia that as per ‘D’ Form Patta conditions 1 and 2, if the assignee had alienated the schedule land and if he fails to bring the land under cultivation within a period of three years from the date of grant of assignment, the land can be resumed. The original assignee or his legal heirs never cultivated the land and they sold away the same to others. One of the purchasers – Smt. Malakala Suseelamma – cleared the shrub growth and raised blackgram in Fasli 1405. Another purchaser – Venkateswara Raju – constructed sheds and started school for children, but he has failed to run the school and left the village leaving the constructed sheds on ground. The land in question is needed for providing house sites to the weaker sections and in view of the above, the respondents want to resume the same. Heard both sides. There is no dispute that the husband of the petitioner was granted DKT patta for an extent of Ac.4.02 gts of land in Sy.Nos.141/2 and 141/4 of Alimili village, Balayapalli Mandal, Nellore District. The husband of the petitioner is no more. The assignment was made in the year 1968 and the same is sought to be cancelled on the ground that a part of the land was sold to third parties, the land was not put to cultivation for all these years and it is needed for providing house sites to the people belonging to weaker sections of the society. Firstly, the notice issued saying that the land was sold to third parties and as such, the patta should not be cancelled, does not stand the scrutiny of law. Even according to the Assignment Rules, whenever an assignee sells his property to a third party, it must be resumed from him and restored to the original assignee. Instead of doing this, the 2nd respondent has issued a fragile notice contrary to the provisions of Assignment Rules. Secondly, the petitioner has categorically stated that after her husband, she has been in continuous possession and cultivating the assigned land by raising various crops and she has never sold the property to any third party. The counter filed by the 2nd respondent simply states that the petitioner had not cultivated the land for 3 faslis immediately after assignment. The assignment was made in the year 1968 and the present notice was issued on 17-3-1997 i.e. after about three decades. This itself is fallacious. It appears, the whole effort made by the respondents to cancel the patta granted in favour of the husband of the petitioner was due to political factions to provide this land for house sites to weaker sections. If really, the Government is interested in allotting this land for the purpose of providing house sites to the people belonging to the weaker sections of the society, it can do so, by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, but it cannot find a ruse of this nature to oust the petitioner, a widow, from the land, which was assigned to her husband in the year 1968. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the 2nd respondent on 17.03.1997 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 22-8-2008 prk