THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO :1367 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy ) This writ appeal is filed against order dated 12.6.2001 in W.P.No.11223 of 2001 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby he dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Heard Sri C. Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Govt. Pleader for Assignments for the respondents. An extent of Ac.5.25 cents of dry land in S.No.1128-2 of Malakaledu village, Sattur Mandal, Anantapur District was assigned in favour of one Asadi Erappa on 4.4.1961. The said land was resumed to the Government and assigned to the appellant by proceedings, dated 18.10.1991 of respondent No.3. The reason for resumption was that the assigned land was sold by Asadi Erappa to the appellant in violation of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”). About 11 years after the assignment in favour of the appellant, the said assignment was cancelled by respondent No.1 by his proceedings dated 20.2.2001. Two reasons for cancellation of the said assignment, were that the appellant was a wealthy pattadar having Ac.1.26 cents of land and therefore he was not eligible for assignment and that under the provisions of the Act, the land, which was resumed on the ground of violation of the conditions of assignment and the provisions of the Act, should have been restored to the original owner. Against the said order of cancellation of assignment, the appellant filed W.P.No:11223 of 2001. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge, which order is questioned in this writ appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding that the appellant was a wealthy pattadar is incorrect, that while the appellant denied that he is having any land, no details were furnished as to the survey number, in which the said land is situated, and that even assuming that granting of assignment in favour of the appellant was contrary to the provisions of the Act, there is no justification for respondent No.2 to cancel the assignment 11 years after the same was made in favour of the appellant. The learned Government Pleader Revenue (assignments) opposing these contentions submitted that as there is a statutory violation in assigning the land in favour of the appellant, instead of resuming the land in favour of the original assignee, the assignment was rightly cancelled and the learned single Judge having dismissed the writ petition, there is no need to interfere with the said order by this Court. We have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel. As regards the first ground of cancellation viz., the appellant is a wealthy pattadar, no material is discussed by respondent No.1 in his order as to the survey number in which the said land purportedly belonging to the appellant, is situated. Even assuming that the appellant was owning Ac.1.26 cents of land, by no means, he can be described as a wealthy pattadar. Therefore, this ground on which the assignment was cancelled, cannot be sustained. With regard to the second ground, it is no doubt true that under section 4 (1) (b) of the Act, the land, which is resumed on account of contravention of the provisions of section 3 (1) of the Act, shall be restored to the original assignee or his legal heir or where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such assignee or his legal heir, the same shall be resumed to the Government for assignment to landless poor persons in accordance with the rules for the time being in force. It is true that this provision was violated by the respondents in not assigning the land in favour of the appellant. But, the question is whether the respondents are justified in racking up the issue nearly 11 years after the assignment was made in favour of the appellant, who undisputedly was a landless poor person. Even assuming that he owned Ac.1.26 cents of land at the time of purchase, the appellant was althrough in possession of the said land and he claims that he invested huge money for developing the land and making it fit for cultivation. In our considered view, the respondents not only violated the provisions of section 4 (1) (b) of the Act, but also failed to be diligent in initiating the proceedings within a reasonable time. The cancellation of assignment after a long time looks to us tobe iniquitous and unfair, more so, when the appellant is equally a landless poor person as the original assignee was. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by respondent No.1, which is impugned in the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader for assignments submitted that if the appellant is allowed to retain the extent of Ac.5.25 cents of land, he will be permitted to hold about Ac.6.50 cents of land and he will then cease to be a landless poor person. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant does not own any land much less Ac.1.26 cents of land. Since this being a disputed question of fact, it is not possible for us to decide the same in these proceedings. Therefore, we direct respondent No.1 to hold an enquiry after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. If it is found that the appellant or his family is owning any land in addition to Ac.5.25 cents, which was assigned to him in the year 1991, the extent of land, which is in excess of Ac.5.25 cents of land, can be resumed to the original assignee or any other eligible landless poor persons, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In such event, the appellant shall be given an option to surrender the portion of the land of his choice from out of the assigned land of Ac.5.25 cents. Subject to the above observations, the writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ____________________________ Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy 19th February, 2009 Nn THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO :1367 of 2001 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy ) 19.02.2009