IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18183 of 2000 Between: Akkam Venkata Rao … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Khammam & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondents 1to3: AGP for Revenue (Assignment) This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18183 of 2000 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 14.08.2000 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he affirmed order dated 10.08.1996 of respondent No.2. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The dispute pertains to an extent of Ac.9.27 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.168/5 and 170 of Malkaram Village, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District. Alleging that the petitioner is in possession of the said property in violation of the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act’), respondent No.3 issued show cause notice dated 22.12.1993 to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an explanation before respondent No.3, who thereafter passed order dated 06.09.1994 resuming the land to Sri Malladi Veera Venkulu, the father of respondent No.4. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.2. The said appeal having been dismissed by respondent No.2 by his order dated 10.08.1996, the petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No.1, which also ended in dismissal. The petitioner therefore filed the present writ petition questioning all the abovementioned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 3 committed a grievous error in proceeding on the assumption that the land in question is an assigned land. He contended that no material is referred to by the said respondents in order to come to the definite conclusion that the land is an assigned land and therefore the very initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Act is wholly without jurisdiction. Opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) took me through the order passed by respondent No.2 and contended that having regard to the material on which reliance was placed by him in his order, the contention of the petitioner that there was no material regarding the nature of the property cannot be accepted. Since the land was found to be an assigned land, the learned Assistant Government Pleader contended, respondent No.3 had jurisdiction for resuming the same for violation of the condition of the assignment. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 is not present at the hearing. In his order, respondent No.3 has not discussed anything about the contention raised by the petitioner that the land in question is not an assigned land. Respondent No.2 in his order specifically adverted to the plea of the petitioner that the property is not an assigned land. The said plea was negatived by him by stating that as per the Khasra pahani the petition scheduled land is a Government land and the same was assigned to respondent No.4 herein. Further, respondent No.2 has not given the date on which the Khasra pahani was prepared and the proceedings by and the date on which the father of respondent No.4 was assigned the land. In my considered view, having made the allegation that the land is an assigned land, the initial burden rests on the official respondents to show that the land is an assigned land. This issue assumes importance because it is a jurisdictional question and the validity of the action initiated under the proceedings of the Act depends upon this issue. Therefore, it is incumbent upon respondent Nos.3 and 2 to give a specific finding as to the nature of the property, namely, whether it was a Government land, and was assigned to the father of respondent No.4 or a private land. If the land was a Government land and assigned to the family of respondent No.4, the same would be evident from the records such as Diglot, assignment register and the proceedings by which the land is assigned. No reasons have been assigned by respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to refer to these documents in their orders. Though in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is stated that the land was assigned in the year 1959, apart from the said statement being vague, the said fact not having been mentioned any where in any of the orders of respondent Nos.1 to 3, it is not possible to accept such a statement made for the first time in the counter-affidavit. The law is well settled that the administrative authorities cannot seek to sustain the validity of their orders on the basis of the affidavits subsequently filed. (see Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji[1] and Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others[2]). While respondent No.2 has not made a specific reference to the documents, as already noticed above, which conclusively show that the property is a Government and an assigned land, respondent No.1 failed to advert to this aspect at all. Further, it is noticed from the order of respondent No.2 that he made reference to the provisions of the Land Transfer Regulations No.1 of 1959 read with 1 of 1970 and gave a finding that transfer of land is null and void under the said regulations. This finding of respondent No.2 cannot be sustained because the show cause notice was issued under the provisions of the Act and not under the Land Transfer Regulations. Respondent No.2, therefore, cannot mix up both these aspects. At any rate, in his affidavit the petitioner specifically pleaded that the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Paloncha vide his order dated 25.03.1994 passed in LTR. Case No.1427/93/OPT held that the provisions of the A.P. Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation Nos.1 of 1959 and 1 of 1970 are not attracted to the petitioner’s case. This averment is not denied in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1. Having regard to the findings given above that respondent Nos.1 to 3 failed to decide the jurisdictional issue, namely, whether the land in question is a Government and assigned land or not with reference to the specific material, the orders passed by them cannot be sustained. Accordingly, all the orders passed by them are set aside. Liberty is given to them to initiate fresh proceedings at their option, if there is enough material to show that the land in question is a Government and assigned land and not a private land. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.23127 of 2000 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.07.2008 ES [1] AIR (39) 1952 SC 16 [2] AIR 1978 SC 851