THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.23617 of 2002 16.07.2010 Between: Y.Sreenivasulu ...Petitioner And The District Collector, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District, And another. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.23617 of 2002 ORDER: Petitioner’s father was assigned land admeasuring Acs.5.34 cents in survey No.137 situated at Rudra Bharathi Peta, Chennur Mandal, Kadapa District by DKT patta No.1816 of 1967, dated 21.12.1967. The petitioner statedly is physically challenged person. He ekes out livelihood by running a telephone booth at Chemumaipet in Kadapa. The land was brought into cultivation as alleged. The land was taken possession for construction of Andhra Pradesh Special Police Force Battallion Staff Quarters. Subsequently, as the land had no ground water, the location was shifted to Government land near Sidhout. After the said decision, petitioner approached second respondent for restoration of land to him by making representations, in vain. In the meanwhile, alleging that respondents are likely to assign the land in favour of third parties, he filed the instant writ petition seeking the following relief. For the reasons stated in accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in restoring the D.K.T. Patta No.1816/77, dated 21.12.1967 relating to the land in an extent of Ac.5.34 cents in Sy.No.137 situated at Rudra Bharathi Peta, Chennur Mandal, Kadapa District as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and abdication of the statutory duty cast on them apart from being violative of the Fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore the D.K.T.Patta No.1816/67, dated 21.12.1967 relating to the land in an extent of Acs.5.34 cents in Sy.No.137 situated at Rudra Bharathi Peta, Chennur Mandal, Kadapa District and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Second respondent filed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that petitioner’s father Venkataswamy never cultivated the land, that he sold away the land contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act, for brevity), that on receipt of the representation of petitioner as directed by first respondent, enquiry was conducted, that during enquiry it is found that the land has already been sold to Smt Ghousee Bee, W/o Nagur Saheb, for a sum of Rs.9,000/- who inturn sold the land to different persons as house sites under different sale deeds and that the land was resumed by proceedings No.A/1049/94, dated 18.11.1994 of the first respondent. The writ petition is also opposed on the ground that petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. The case was heard on 16.06.2010. As the second respondent has not filed the copies of registration documents under which the subject land was sold by one person to other in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the matter was adjourned. When the matter was listed on 17.06.2010, Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) produced the documents which were also supplied to petitioner’s counsel. Be it also noted that the petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit denying the counter affidavit. This Court heard counsel for petitioner and Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to restore the land on the ground that he is the only legal heir of his father entitled to succeed to the assigned land and that he is landless and physically challenged landless poor person. After the Government filed counter affidavit, it has been revealed that the petitioner’s father sold the subject land to P.Krishna, S/o Lingappa, Mechanic, Kadapa town under registered sale deed, registered vide document No.212/1982, dated 05.04.1982 (book I, volume 1123 at pages 32 and 34) in the office of the Joint Sub Registrar, Kadapa. The said Krishna executed registered General Power of Attorney, vide document No.1/1983, dated 03.01.1983 (book 4, volume 101 to 103) in the Office of Sub Registrar, Kadapa. Subsequently, under registered sale deed, dated 24.01.1986, P.Krishna represented by GPA holder alienated the property to Ghousee Begum, W/o Nagur Saheb for sale consideration of Rs.9,000/-. The property in these documents is land admeasuring Acs.5.34 in survey No.137 of Rudra Bharathi Pet Village. These documents are sufficient enough to hold that way back in June, 1982, petitioner’s father late Venkataswamy sold the property to Krishna. It is certainly in contravention and gross violation of Section 3 of the Act. It also becomes clear that second respondent initiated action and resumed the land on 18.11.1994. This stands admitted as the petitioner himself made an averment in the affidavit that the Government took possession of the land for construction of APSP Quarters. If it is subsequently not utilized, the same does not confer any right on the petitioner, as under Section 4(2) of the Act, it is the discretion of the authorities either to restore the land to the legal heirs of original assignee or to utilize the land for some other purpose. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that subsequently respondents prepared a layout and assigned land to landless poor persons in an extent of Acs.0.2½ cents each. The register is also produced before this Court. After perusing the same, this Court is convinced that the petitioner, who is son of original assignee, who was dispossessed long back cannot seek any indulgence from this Court. If so advised, he is given liberty to approach second respondent for assignment of land and the second respondent, subject to satisfying the eligibility criteria as per the Assignment Rules contained in BSO 15 and other applicable Rules, may consider the case of petitioner. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 16.07.2010 Pln