HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1776 of 2005 Between: 1. Neelapu Bhudevi, w/o late Siva Rao, r/o Kella Street, Srikakulam Town & Mandal, Srikakulam District. 2. Neelapu Eswara Rao 3. Neelapu Durga Rao .. PETITIONERS AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Srikakulam Mandal & District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam. 3 The District Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam. 4 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad. 5 The Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Assign.III) Department,Hyderabad. 6 District Congress Committee ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.L.N.RAO Counsel for respondents 1 to 5: AGP FOR REVENUE (ASSIGNMENTS) Counsel for respondent No.6: None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in alienating the land admeasuring Ac.0.80 cents in Survey No.38/2 in Arasavilli Village, Srikakulam Town and District to third parties, without communicating any orders on the petition of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to order dated 31-12-2004 passed in W.P.No.25017 of 2004. Heard Sri K.L.N.Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) for respondents 1 to 5. No one is present for respondent No.6. This writ petition was originally filed by Smt Neelapu Bhudevi, who died during the pendency of the writ petition, and her sons came on record as petitioners 2 and 3. For convenience, the deceased petitioner is hereinafter referred to as the petitioner. In her affidavit, the petitioner claimed that an extent of Ac.1.40 cents in Survey No.38/2 of Arasavilli Village, which is now a part of the Srikakulam Municipality was assigned to her father-in-law, late Neelapu Gunnayya, who was an ex-serviceman, in the year 1947, under Grow More Food Scheme; that the land was in his possession up to the year 1962; that after the death of her father-in-law, her husband cultivated the land up to the year 1966 and that after the demise of her husband, she continued the cultivation up to the year 1984. She further averred that the Tahsildar, Srikakulam granted ‘D’ form patta in the year 1968 in her favour vide his proceedings ROC No.1745/68/A32 dated 15-12-1968. It is the case of the petitioner that as her application for splitting of the patta between her and her son Neelapu Eswara Rao was pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, she stopped cultivation of the land up to the year 1989; that she again started cultivation thereafter; that she made a representation to the Special Deputy Collector (ROR), Srikakulam on 01-10-1991 for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, which was referred to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Srikakulam and that while the said representation was pending, she sold Ac.0.60 cents under registered sale deeds. She further averred that she was recently informed by the Revenue officials that the ‘D’ form patta granted to her in the year 1968 was cancelled; that the land would be alienated to the third parties for market value and that she filed W.P.No.25017 of 2004 in this Court, which was disposed of on 31-12-2004 with the observation that if the respondents seek to cancel ‘D’ form patta, they shall issue a notice to the petitioner calling for her explanation and pass appropriate orders after considering the same and that till such exercise is undertaken, status quo obtaining as on the day of passing the order shall be maintained as regards the possession of the petitioner. It was further observed that if the respondents already followed the due process of law, they are at liberty to take consequential action in accordance with the decision taken by them. The grievance of the petitioner is that no further action was taken by the respondents to comply with the said order of this Court and that despite her long standing possession, the respondents have been seeking to alienate the land in favour of the third parties. The District Congress Committee, Srikakulam got impleaded itself as respondent No.6. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Srikakulam, it is, inter alia, mentioned that the petitioner was given ‘D’ form patta in respect of Ac.1.40 cents of land in old Survey No.38/2 (New Survey No.13) of Arasavilli Village, on 15-12-1969; that the petitioner has not brought the land under cultivation as required under the patta conditions; that a show cause notice was sent to her address on 14-11-1985 and that the same was returned undelivered. It is further averred that in response to the subsequent notice sent through registered post acknowledgement due, the petitioner appeared and deposed before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Srikakulam on 29-12- 1985, wherein she admitted that she never cultivated the land and that she sold about Ac.0.80 cents of land during the years 1984-85. It is further averred that as the petitioner violated the patta conditions by alienating a major pat of the land, the land was resumed to the Government vide his proceedings D.Dis.865/85 dated 05-01-1986 and the orders were dispatched through registered post acknowledgment due to the petitioner’s Nellore address, which was returned with an endorsement “refused” on 13-01-1986 and that possession of the land was taken under a panchanama on 15-01-1986. It is further averred that Sri K.Rama Rao, Sri Ch.Laxminarasimha Reddy, Sri P.Ganapathi Rao and Smt D.Sarojini, who purchased a part of the assigned land from the petitioner, filed W.P.No.16344 of 1986 and that the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 14-08-1989 by directing the respondents to give one more opportunity to the petitioners therein to show cause against the proposed resumption of the land; that in pursuance of the said order, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner and the purchasers on 16-11- 1991 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, which was served on them, and that after considering their explanation, the Mandal Revenue Officer vide his proceedings dated 22-01-1992, resumed the land and that the said order was dispatched to the petitioner to her Nellore address on 27-01-1992 through registered post, which was also returned to the Mandal Revenue Officer unserved. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the purchasers filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam and that the same was dismissed and that the revisions filed by the purchasers also met the same fate with their dismissal by the Joint Collector, Srikakulam vide his order dated 16-10-1993. In her reply-affidavit, the petitioner, while claiming that she was residing in Srikakulam but frequently visiting Nellore, admitted that she attended the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Srikakulam on 29-12-1985 and that she questioned the propriety of the respondents for sending the notices and orders to her Nellore address. In the affidavit filed by the impleaded respondent, it is stated that an extent of Ac.0.60 cents in Survey No.13/3 of Khajipeta Village, Arasavilli Rural was assigned in favour of the impleaded respondent under G.O.Ms.No.1830 dated 21-10-2005 and that physical possession was handed over to it on 03-02-2005. At the hearing, Sri K.L.N.Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that the action of the respondents in resuming the entire extent of Ac.1.40 cents is illegal inasmuch as, even if there is violation of conditions of patta, it is only the land, which was alienated in violation of the patta conditions that is liable to be resumed. He further submitted that the petitioner did not have proper opportunity to put forth her case before the assignment was cancelled and the land was resumed. Opposing these contentions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments), while placing the record before the Court, submitted that the petitioner was given every conceivable opportunity to participate in the proceedings and contest the notice and that having once appeared and given her statement admitting alienation of the land, she failed to either question the original order of the Mandal Revenue Officer resuming the land or participate in the further proceedings after the remand. The records produced before me clearly show that the petitioner appeared on 29-12-1985 before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Srikakulam and made a statement in vernacular language, wherein she admitted that she sold a part of the property. In her reply-affidavit, she tacitly admitted this fact as well. The petitioner failed to disclose this fact in her affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Indisputably the petitioner failed to question either the original order of resumption passed on 05-01-1986 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Srikakulam or order dated 22-01-1992 passed by him after remand whereunder, the Mandal Revenue Officer reconfirmed his earlier order of resumption. Thus, the petitioner allowed the resumption order, which was affirmed in appeal and revisions filed by some of the purchasers, to become final. The petitioner evidently suppressed the fact of passing of two orders by the Mandal Revenue Officer, resuming the land and filed W.P.No.25017 of 2004, which was disposed of by this Court with an innocuous order that before cancellation of the assignment, the respondents shall issue notice to the petitioner. This Court, however, further observed that if an order was already passed resuming the land, after following due process of law, the respondents are entitled to take consequential steps to give effect to the decision. In my considered view, the petitioner, who failed to question the resumption orders, and allowed the same to become final, cannot be permitted to approach this Court more than 13 years after the order was passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer resuming the land. I also find that the petitioner was not fair in her conduct, as she did not disclose the material facts, which include the proceedings initiated by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Srikakulam as far back as the year 1986; her participation in such proceedings and the orders passed resuming the land. By merely feigning ignorance of the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer-respondent No.1, the petitioner has not advanced her case because respondent No.1, in his affidavit, stated in unequivocal terms that the orders passed by him both before and after remand were sent to her known address to Nellore, which were returned with the endorsement “refused”. The petitioner, therefore, is presumed to have constructive knowledge of the orders passed by respondent No.1. As regards order dated 31-12-2004, passed by this Court in W.P.No.25017 of 2004, I am not convinced with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have not compiled with the directions contained in the said order. As noted above, this Court merely observed that if order of resumption was not passed earlier, the respondents shall give notice before passing such an order and that if an order has already been passed, after following due process of law, the respondents shall be free to take consequential action. From the facts discussed above, it is very clear that much before the said order was passed by this Court, the respondents have resumed the land after following the due process of law. The petitioner, who slept over the matter for a number of years, cannot maintain this writ petition, which suffers from uncondonable laches. Therefore, the contention that the land, which was not alienated by the petitioner, is liable to be returned to her cannot be appreciated because, if at all, such a contention should have been put forth by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the appellate authority. This Court does not find any reason to entertain such a contention, at this stage, in the writ petition, which is filed with unexplained delay of 13 years. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 17th March, 2009 vrn