HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 3878 OF 2010. DATED 20th April, 2011 BETWEEN Boorsu Mallakka …Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle Division, Madanapalle Chittoor District and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 3878 OF 2010. ORDER: Heard Sri K.Mahadeva, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Sri M.Venkataramana Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 3 to 9. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in an extent of Ac.4.47 cents comprised in Sy.No. 568/1 and an extent of Ac.0.52 cents comprised in Sy.No. 569/1 of Matlivaripalli Revenue village, Kurabalakota Revenue Mandal, Madanapalli Division, Chittoor District, is a Government land and the same was initially allotted to one Akkulappa being a landless poor person by the then Tahsildar, Madanapalle vide proceedings A.M.No. 456/4/65. After his death, the petitioner herein succeeded to the subject land being the only legal heir. It is the case of the petitioner that as respondents 2 to 6 are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land, she filed a petition before the first respondent on 10.07.2009 seeking protection of the subject land. The first respondent initially granted interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo and further directed the Tahsildar, Kurabalakota to take necessary action to protect the rights of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that the first respondent though initially granted interim direction in her favour but ultimately dismissed the application vide order in D.Dis.(B1)/3471/2009 dated 6.2.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submitted that the order impugned in this Writ Petition suffers from vice of principles of natural justice as the same came to be passed based on the report dated 6.2.2010 submitted by the Tahsildar, Kurabalakota, who never visited the subject land and caused enquiry in that regard. The so-called Tahsildar even did not issue prior notice before submitting the report dated 6.2.2010. The learned Counsel submitted that the subject land was assigned in favour of the petitioner’s father, Akulappa, in the year 1955 and after his death, the petitioner succeeded to the subject land and she is cultivating the land since then. He further submitted that when the petitioner made a request for certified copies of the record, the Tahsildar, Kurbalakota, made an endorsement dated 5.6.2009 thereon stating that the file relating to subject land is not available but in the life of the remarks of the first respondent, he sent report, without issuing prior notice and conducting enquiry in regard thereto. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the subject land was assigned to Voddichalla Akkulappa by the then Tahsildar of erstwhile Madanapalle Taluk vide A.M.No.456/4/65, dated 22.12.1965 under normal Darkast rules. It is further stated that as the original assignee i.e. the said Akkulappa alienated the subject land, vide registered sale deed No. 468, dated 17.6.1969 in favour of Raju Seetha Ramaiah for valid consideration, in violation of the conditions of assignment, the assignment of the subject land was cancelled vide proceedings No.D2/4003/72, dated 28.08.1972 and after efflux of appeal time, the subject land was again assigned in favour of one Sivaijamadar Sri Raju Seetha Ramaiah vide A.M.No.299/4/82, dated 26.09.1972. It is further stated that after the said assignment, the said Raju Seetha Ramaiah was put in physical possession and enjoyment of the subject land and after his demise, his son, Raju Venkatramana, second respondent, succeeded to the said property and he was also granted pattadar pass book and title deeds vide IB Khata No.1237 and PPB No.02092 respectively under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. It is further stated that the protest petition submitted by the petitioner was taken on file and after conducting due enquiry and verifying the connected records and after making personal inspection of the subject land on 26.11.2009, order impugned in this Writ Petition was passed on 6.2.2010. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 9, it is stated that the father of the petitioner, Akkulappa sold away the subject land to the father of the second respondent through a registered sale deed for valid consideration and since the date of purchase, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land and thereafter, the second respondent succeeded to the subject property. It is stated that in as much as the subject land was purchased prior to the commencement of the A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, and the father of the second respondent was a landless poor person prior to the date of purchase of the subject land, the revenue authorities granted patta in respect of the subject land in favour of the father of the second respondent and that too, after cancelling the assignment made in favour of the father of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, respondents 2 to 9 reiterated the averments made in the counter of the first respondent. Perused the case file. A perusal of the case file discloses that originally the subject land was assigned to the father of the petitioner Akkulappa vide A.M. No. 456/4/65, dated 22.12.1955. The said Akkulappa, in violation of the conditions of the assignment, sold away the subject land in favour of one Raju Seetha Ramaiah through a registered sale deed No. 468, dated 17.6.1969 for valid consideration. In as much as the above grant was made subject to adherence to number of conditions and one among them being non-alienation, the Tahsildar, Madanapalle, has passed orders for cancellation of the assignment grant in favour of the father of the petitioner vide Proceedings No.D2/4003/72, dated 28.08.1972. Pertinent to note, the said cancellation of the assignment has not been challenged either by the original assignee or his legal representatives before an appropriate forum. After the cancellation of the said assignment and efflux of appeal time, the Tahsildar, Madanapalli, made fresh and independent assignment to Sivaijamadar Sri Raju Seetha Ramaiah vide A.M. No. 299/4/82, dated 26.09.1972. Even at this stage also, the grant of said assignment was also not challenged either by the original assignee i.e. Akkulappa or his legal representatives. The subsequent assignee, i.e. Sri Raju Seetha Ramaiah was put in physical possession and enjoyment of the subject land from the date of assignment and after his demise, his son, Raju Venkataramana, the second respondent herein, succeeded to the subject property. As can be seen from the counter of the first respondent, it is clear that the second respondent was issued Pattadar pass books and title deed vide IB Khata No. 1237 and PPB No.02092 respectively under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. The personal enquiry of the first respondent reveals that the subject land is in active possession and enjoyment of the second respondent since 25 to 40 years and that the second respondent is cultivating the subject land since 25 to 40 years. The first respondent, after hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, rightly observed as under: “ As seen from the copy of the orders of the then Tahsildar, Madanaplle dated 28.8.1972, the order of cancellation was passed even prior to the enactment of AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition on Transfers) Act 1977 and under such circumstances, the pleadings of the petitioner that the sale is in the name of Raju Venkataramana and the re-assignment was made in the name of Raju Seetharamanna and the reasons there for are not forthcoming due to non availability of connected file is not relevant, due to the reasons that the said orders passed by the then Tahsildar, Madanapalle were passed for violation of the conditions of grant wherein the conditions of the D-form, alienation of the land alone by the assignee is sufficient ground for cancellation of the grant. Accordingly, the action taken by the then Tahsildar, Madanaplle will not come under the purview of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition on Transfers ) Act, 1977. The cancellation of assignment of Akkulappa and the re- assignment to Raju Seetharamanna are to separate proceedings and they both could not be seen together during the period of pre-enactment of Act 9 of 1977’’ Having due regard to the facts and circumstances discussed hereinbefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. I find no merit in the writ petition which is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition, is therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 20th April, 2011. Msnro