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. 20109 of 1996 Between: 1 Sri B.Narasimha Rao S/o.Pannaiah R/o.Anumarlapudi Village, Pedakakani Mandal Guntur Dist. 2 B.Sangeetha Rao S/o.Pannaiah R/o.Anumarlapudi Village, Pedakakani Mandal Guntur Dist. 3 M.Sambaiah S/o.Subbaiah R/o.Anumarlapudi Village,Pedakakani Mandal Guntur Dist. 4 M.Samrajyam S/o.Sambaiah R/o.Anumarlapudi Village,Pedakakani Mandal Guntur Dist. 5 P.Yacob S/o.Daniel R/o.Anumarlapudi Village,Pedakakani Mandal Guntur Dist. 6 P.Daniel S/o.Moshi R/o.Anumarlapudi Village,Pedakakani Mandal Guntur Dist. 7 B.Kondaiah S/o.Panaiah R/o.Anumarlapudi Village,Pedakakani Mandal Guntur Dist. 8 B.Obaiah S/o.Panaiah R/o.Anumarlapudi Village,Pedakakani Mandal Guntur Dist. 9 G.Sambaiah S/o.Ramaiah R/o.Anumarlapudi Village,Pedakakani Mandal Guntur Dist. 10 Polu Yegamma W/o.Guruvaiah R/o.Anumarlapudi Village,Pedakakani Mandal Guntur Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Govt.of A.P rep.by its Secratary to Govt.,Revenue Dept Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner of Land Revenue Nampally Station Road A.P Hyderabad. 3 District Collector Guntur. 4 Mandal Revenue Officer Pedakakani Mandal Guntur Dist. 5 Tenali Nageswara Rao S/o.Yelananda Anumarlapudi Village Pedakakani Mandal 6 K.Mohan Rao S/o.Seshaiah Anumarlapudi Village Pedakakani Mandal .....RESPONDENTS 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the said impugned proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.737, Revenue (Assn.I) Dept, dt.3-9-1996 canceling the D.K.T., issued in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners pray that the same may be quashed and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. M. VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.20109 of 1996 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.737, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 3-9-1996 cancelling the DKT pattas issued in favour of the petitioners and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. There are 10 petitioners in this writ petition. It appears, they were allotted each 2½ acres of land in Sy.No.56 (classified as tank poramboke) of Ura Tank of Anumarlapudi village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District and DKT pattas were issued in their favour on 1-6-1972 on payment of market value of Rs.500/- per acre. Respondents 5 and 6 seem to have made a complaint seeking to cancel the assignments made in favour of the petitioners, in the year 1973. On the said complaint, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur cancelled the assignments made in favour of the petitioners by an Order dated 3-11-1973 (Ref.No.D/6350/73). The said order of cancellation passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was challenged by way of filing a writ petition in W.P.No.6557 of 1973 and by an Order dated 11-9- 1975 this Court set aside the order of cancellation holding that the RDO has no jurisdiction and the Collector could take up the matter as there is a change in the provision of law. Thereafter, the Collector had taken up the matter and opined that he has no jurisdiction, since 3 years had elapsed from the date of assignment and it is the Board of Revenue, which is competent to hear the matter. Thus, the matter was referred to the Board of Revenue, which had issued notices to the petitioners to show cause as to why the pattas granted in their favour should not be cancelled. Challenging the same, a writ petition being W.P.No.3521 of 1976 was filed before this Court on the ground that the Member of the Board of Revenue himself had issued a direction to the Collector proposing cancellation of pattas. Therefore, this Court held that the Commissioner of Land Revenue is only competent authority to enquire into the matter. In pursuance of the said Orders of the Court, the Commissioner issued notices to all the necessary parties and passed final order upholding the assignments made in favour of the petitioners by his order dated 10-3- 1978 observing that the petitioners are sivai jamadars and landless poor persons, which was the criteria for granting them assignment, respondents 5 and 6 are neither in possession of the land and they have never claimed the said lands nor they were in possession and some criminal cases relating to trespass were pending against them. The Order of the Commissioner of Land Revenue was challenged before the Government. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.558, dated 6-4-1979 cancelling the assignments granted in favour of the petitioners holding that the petitioners are able to get assignments in their favour due to their association with the village heads and the claims of landless poor persons were not considered. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners filed another writ petition being W.P.No.3355 of 1979. However, the said writ petition was dismissed. Challenging the same, an appeal in W.A.No.357 of 1980 was preferred and the same was allowed and the impugned Order therein and also G.O.Ms.No.558, dated 6-4-1979 were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Government for fresh consideration, while taking into account the validity of the constitution of the committee, and whether any defect in the constitution will invalidate the assignment. The Government, thereafter, issued G.O.Ms.No.232, dated 28-2-1992 whereunder again the assignment made in favour of the petitioners was cancelled holding that they were made on benami names. Questioning the said Order, a writ petition being W.P.No.3874 of 1992 was filed by the petitioners and the same was allowed setting aside G.O.Ms.No.232, dated 28-2-1992 and again remanding the matter for fresh enquiry, for the reason that the Government had not passed appropriate orders in conformity with the Orders of this Court in W.A.No.357 of 1980, dated 18-8-1981. Government again reexamined the matter and issued G.O.Ms.No.737, dated 3-9-1996 cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioners holding that the assignment committee was not constituted as per the guidelines. Thus, the assignments made by the Tahsildar on 1-6-1972 were cancelled by the present G.O. Challenging the same, this writ petition is filed. Respondents 1 to 4, the 5th respondent and the 6th respondent filed separate counters. In the counter filed by respondents 1 to 4 they have reiterated the reasons as furnished in G.O.Ms.No.737, dated 3-9-1996 and stated that the same was issued on the basis of the Collector’s report in D.Dis.10615/81-83 dated 9-1-1982 and Rc.No.2647/91-B3, dated 1-8-1996. It is further stated that the assignment made in favour of the petitioners in the year 1972 was based on the fair market value and on the basis of the sivaijama occupation. But since the High Court in W.P.No.3874 of 1992 by an Order dated 28-2-1992 ordered the Government for fresh disposal duly complying with the directions of the Court issued in W.A.No.357 of 1980, dated 18-8- 1981, Government after reexamining the matter, cancelled the assignment made in the year 1972 on the ground that the committee was not constituted in accordance with the guidelines prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.993, Revenue Department, dated 13- 10-1969. In the assignment committee, a Scheduled Caste member was not included and that was an administrative lapse on the part of the Revenue Department in constituting the committee. Therefore, the recommendation made by the committee and the pattas issued in pursuance thereof are illegal and the petitioners have not accrued any right therefor. The present impugned Order is passed by the Government as per the directions of this Court in W.A.No.357 of 1980; therefore, it cannot be faulted with. Respondent No.5 filed a separate counter stating that DKT pattas issued in favour of petitioners were based on sivai jama occupation and subject to payment of market value. Respondent No.5 and one Mohan Rao (respondent No.6) objected for grant of D.K.T. pattas on the ground that the assignment was not proper and the same was issued without observing procedural formalities contemplated under the Board Standing Orders. DKT pattas issued way back on 1-6-1972 were cancelled, which will serve nobody’s purpose. Therefore, the 5th respondent was advised not to continue as an objector for the DKT pattas issued in favour of the petitioners. As such, he wishes to no longer continue as respondent and he is no longer interested in this litigation and he gave up his cause voluntarily. A detailed counter is filed by the 6th respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated inter alia that the petitioners obtained assignment in collusion with the then Panchayat President. The then Tahsildar under the influence of the Panchayat President formed an alleged assignment committee contrary to the guidelines in G.O.Ms.no.993, dated 13-10-1969, by not including a representative of the Scheduled Caste landless poor person as member, though there are about 80 families of Harijans, who are landless poor. It is contended the poor persons were denied their livelihood by granting pattas to benamidar and persons, who are close to the village head were given pattas. Therefore, the pattas can be cancelled at any time and the land can be allotted to others, even if it is more than 25 years. The petitioners are agitating vexatiously and enjoying the 22 acres in collusion with the officials of Revenue and Police Departments. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned Order and other material made available on record. At the outset, it may be necessary to notice the Order passed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue dated 10-3-1978, insofar as the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is concerned. In canceling the assignment of pattas, the Commissioner noticed the following five irregularities: 1. That the Taluk file does not contain the original regulation of the village assignment committee and hence, this raised some doubts as to the genuineness of the resolution; 2. That the Tahsildar had not passed any speaking order or discussed the inter se merits of other eligible persons in the village; 3. That the circumstances under which assignments were made, ignoring the claim of the previous occupants are not explicable; 4. That the authority fixing the market valueof the land wasnot forthcoming; 5. That the assignees are Benamidars of the Sarpanch of the village. While dealing with each and every objection, in detail, the Commissioner held them against the objectors and it was found that in deed entire motivation behind the programme of giving pattas is to give to the people, who are landless poor, the pride of ownership and the consequent ability to stand on their own legs. The farm labourer today becoming a pattadar will become independent of his erstwhile master. As the petitioners were sivai jamadars and as they were landless poor, their claims were duly considered and assignment was ordered. The assertion that they are benamidars for the Sarpanch is not adequate to lead to the cancellation of pattas granted to the petitioners. It was also observed that it was equally vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioners that the objectors are also benamidars for one B. Seetharamaiah, a Hotel Keeper of Guntur, who, it is said, is the person behind the objectors and has been indulging in factions for his own purpose. Mere assertions and suspicions cannot be a substitute for evidence. Therefore, the Commissioner was unable to accept the proposition that suspicion should be substituted for evidence and on that ground the assignees have lost their moral and legal right to the lands assigned to them. In the result, the assignment of pattas in favour of sivai jamadars was upheld. Aggrieved by the said order, some objectors filed an appeal before the Government, which issued G.O.Ms.No.558, dated 6-4-1979 cancelling the assignment granted in favour of the petitioners holding that the petitioners are able to get assignment in their favour due to association with village Sarpanch and the claim of other landless poor persons was not considered. Challenging the same, petitioners filed W.P.No.3355 of 1979, but the same was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners preferred an appeal being W.A.No.357 of 1980. However, the writ appeal was allowed and the order in the writ petition was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Government to take into consideration the validity of the constitution of the committee etc. The Order made in W.A.No.357 of 1980, dated 18- 8-1981 reads as under: “In the result, we allow the writ appeal and set aside the orders of the Government and direct the Government to dispose of the revision petitioners in the light of the observations contained in this judgment.” In pursuance of the said order, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.232, dated 28-2-1992 and again cancelled the assignments made in favour of the petitioners holding that they were made on benami names. Challenging the same, petitioners filed W.P.No.3874 of 1992, which was allowed on 25-9-1995 setting aside the Order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.232, dated 28-2-1992 and remanding the matter for fresh enquiry for the reason that the Government had not passed appropriate orders in conformity with the Orders of this Court in W.A.No.357 of 1980. The order passed in W.P.No.3874 of 1992, dated 25-9-1995 reads as under: “For all these reasons, the impugned order has to fall ground. Accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.232, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 28-2-1992 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Government for fresh disposal, after giving adequate opportunity to both the parties to putforth their case and dispose of the revision petition duly complying with the directions given by this Court in Writ Appeal No.357/1980, dated 18-8-1981 within two months from the date of receipt of the Order. Any failure in complying with the order will be viewed seriously and the officer concerned will be properly dealt with.” Thereafter, the Government had taken up the matter again and after considering it in detail passed the present G.O.Ms.No.737, dated 3-9-1996 again canceling the assignment made in favour of the petitioners holding that the assignment committee was not constituted as per the guidelines contemplated. The assignments made by the Tahsildar on 1-6-1972 were cancelled by the present G.O. The assignment was made as early as on 1-6-1972. Petitioners have been in possession of the land as sivai jamadars and they are landless poor. The land was allotted to them on payment of market value of Rs.500/- per acre. These factual aspects are not in dispute. The only objection raised by the objectors was that the petitioners were benamidars and as they are being close to the village heads, the assignment was made in their favour. To this extent, absolutely, there was no evidence placed before the Government and in this regard, it may be necessary to notice the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, which read as under: “Coming to the last point, namely, that the assignees are Benamidars of the Sarpanch or the Village Officer, I am afraid, there is absolutely no evidence in support of this contention. It is true that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, in his order canceling the assignment has stated that the assignees are benamidars either for the Sarpanch or for the Village Officers. But, there is absolutely, no evidence to support this contention. It has been alleged by the learned counsel for the objectors that most of the assignees are inter-related. I do not see how this should come in the way of the assignment itself is concerned. In an average village and that too among members of this community, it would be unusual if they live separately. Merely because they work as labourers for the Sarpanch or the Village Officers would not, in my view, disentitle them to claim a patta land under their own right. In deed, the entire motivation behind the programme of giving pattas is to give to the people, who are landless people, the pride of ownership and the consequent ability to stand on their own legs. The farm labourer today becoming a pattadar tomorrow will become independent of his erstwhile master. As they were sivai jamadars and as they were landless poor, their claims were duly considered and assignment ordered. There were assertion that they are benamidars for the Sarpanch is not in my view adequate to lead to the cancellation of pattas granted to the petitioners. I am point out that it has been equally vehemently argued by the learned Advocate on behalf of the assignees that the objectors are also benamidars for one B. Seetharamaiah, a Hotel Keeper of Guntur, who, it is said, is the person behind the objectors and has been indulging in factions list for his own purpose. Mere assertions and suspicions cannot be a substitute for evidence. I am therefore unable to accept the proposition that suspicion should be substituted for evidence and on that ground hold that the assignees have lost their moral and legal right to the lands assigned to them.’ This finding recorded by the Commissioner of Land Revenue was not met by the Government, except saying that the committee was not properly constituted for the purpose of assignment of lands. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, the Commissioner recorded an elaborate finding, which reads as under: ‘Regarding the argument that the constitution of the committee was contrary to the provisions of the rules and that the Revenue Inspector who functioned as Secretary was not authorized to do so. I am afraid the facts are entirely against this contention. Mala fides have been attributed without any basis. The service registers of all the Revenue Inspectors during this critical period have been examined. It is seen from this and also from the extracts of the pay bills of the 3 Revenue Inspectors concerned that the contention of the objectors that the incharge Revenue Inspector was allowed to attend to this work when there were two Revenue Inspectors incharge of the Firka is incorrect. It is seen that Sri M.B. Srinivasacharyulu was relieved on the fore-noon on 07.07.1971 and as the substitute did not join duty immediately, the Revenue Inspector of Guntur Firka was kept in additional charge of Pedakakani Firka till 09.08.1971 when Sri S. Nageswsara Rao who was posted as Revenue Inspector joined duty. This was a perfectly legitimate arrangement necessitated on administration groups and does not invalidate his acts. I am, therefore satisfied that the constitution of the Village Assignment committee was in order and there is no reason to doubt that the Committee considered the encroachments existing in the tank including the encroachments made by the assignees in the case and passed a valid resolution. In fact, there was no basis for disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, by the Government, at any point of time or in the present impugned Order. Of course, the impugned order was limited only to deal with the aspect as was directed by this Court in W.A.No.357 of 1980. A report was called for from the RDO, who has stated that when a Village Assignment Committee was formulated in the year 1972, it was a fact that no Scheduled Caste member was available in the committee. When the committee constituted in the year 1972, how non-availability of a S.C. member in the committee had prejudiced either the S.C. community or others is not known. On the other hand, as it is noticed from the findings of the Commissioner, that no applications were received from people belonging to S.C. community for allotment of pattas as sivai jamaars at that point of time – nor the complainants i.e. respondents 5 and 6 were in occupation of tank bed land as sivai jamadars and they are entitled for assignment. In fact, the 5th respondent has expressed that he does not want to be a party to this litigation by way of filing a regular affidavit. It is not that the 6th respondent is going to be benefited in the process nor this is a public interest litigation to take the matter in that sense. May be, there was no S.C. member available in the committee. But, absolutely, there is no finding as to how the decision made by the committee recommending the assignment in favour of the petitioners was incorrect. Either before the Tahsildar or before the Collector or before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, there was any evidence to show that the petitioners were benamidars or any fraud was played by them in getting DKT pattas allotted in their favour. In this regard, it may be necessary to notice one factor i.e. petitioners were not only landless poor persons, but are also sivai jamadars and were in occupation of the land at the relevant point of time and the allotment was made not as a regular assignment, but on payment of market value of Rs.500/- per acre. This itself shows that the constitution of committee was only a nominal to identify the landless poor, who are in occupation as sivai jamadars, particularly in the absence of any S.C. applicant available at that point of time. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that no prejudice was caused in the absence of a S.C. member being available in the village assignment committee at the relevant point of time. The whole litigation seems to have been emanated from the objections raised by some interested persons, who are after the petitioners herein. Once the assignment is made on the basis of market value, raising such trivial objections and Government canceling assignment made in favour of the petitioners is nothing but arbitrary and illegal. All through the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the land. So long as their eligibility for allotment to such land as landless poor and occupation as sivai jamedars is not in dispute, these trivial objections raised by some persons cannot be taken into consideration. For all the above reasons, the impugned Order in G.O.Ms.No.737, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 03.09.1996 is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is thus allowed. No order as to costs. 22-8-2008 prk