IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 362 of 2002 Between: Venkaiah, S/o. Bagiah, R/o. Ramreddy peta, Mandal: Kalhair, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Sangareddy, Medak District. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Narayankhed, Medak District. .....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 writ, order or directoin more partricularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaraing the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in file No.F3/164/Asst./95 dt.30.9.2001 as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and against the pricniples of natural justice and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VIJAY KUMAR HEROOR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.362 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 30-09-2001 passed by the 1st respondent in File No.F3/164/Asst./95, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice. The case of the petitioner is that he is the landless poor and was assigned land measuring Acs.5.00 guntas in Survey No.86/A, situated at Ramreddypet village, Kalhair mandal, Rangareddy district, in or about 1960. Ever since from the date of assignment, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same cultivating personally. While the things stood thus, show cause notice dated 28-02-1988 was issued from the Office of the Collector, Medak in File No.C1/2679-II, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the patta granted to him should not be cancelled on the ground, inter alia, that he is having patta land of Acs.6.23 guntas and his annual income is Rs.6,000/- as such, the assignment of land in favour of the petitioner was in violation of terms and conditions of G.O.Ms.No.1406/58. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation disputing the contents of the said show cause notice. Further it is also submitted that he is a landless poor and an extent of Acs.5.00 of land in Survey No.86/A was rightly assigned to him about 40 years ago. As on today, he does not have any other land except Ac.0.21 guntas of land in Survey No.72/1, in addition to the said assigned land. It is also the case of the petitioner that after issuing the show cause notice, in response to which the petitioner submitted his explanation, after long lapse of 12 years from the date of show cause notice, the impugned order dated 30-09-2001 has been passed, without proper appreciation of the case of the petitioner, stating that the explanation does not satisfactorily rebut the charge of holding more than Acs.6.00 guntas, at the time of assignment. It is also submitted that in addition to the land assigned to in his favour he is cultivating an extent of Ac.1.23 guntas of land belonging to one Patta Sangaiah as a tenant. Except that he was not having any other land. Further, the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent ought not to have initiated any proceedings of resumption of land, after a period of 38 years. As stated earlier, the land was assigned to the petitioner during 1960 and the show cause notice was admittedly issued in the year 1988 i.e. after a period of 28 years of the assignment. Therefore, the impugned order is band in law. No counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of not only in violation of principles of natural justice but also arbitrary action on the part of the respondent in initiating the proceedings and issuing the impugned order, affecting the right of the petitioner, over the land in question by way of canceling the assignment made in his favour in the year 1960. He also submits that the petitioner is a landless poor person having no land, as on the date of issuance of assignment. Therefore, after due verification of the eligibility of the petitioner, land in question was assigned to the petitioner in the year 1960 and ever since from the date of assignment, he is in possession and enjoyment of the land by cultivating the same personally. The respondent, for the reasons best known to him, issued the show cause notice on 28-02-1988 vide No.C1/2679/82-II alleging that the petitioner is ineligible for assignment of land and in response to which the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the averments of the respondent. The respondent authorities have slept over for about 12 years and suddenly in the year 2001 the impugned proceedings have been issued. Therefore, he submits that the way in which the respondent had initiated the action and issued the impugned proceedings is arbitrary and illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. Admittedly, the petitioner was assigned the land to an extent of Acs.5.00 guntas of Government land in Survey No.86/A, situated at Ramreddypet village of Kalher mandal in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1406/58. The petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land by actually cultivating the same, from the date of assignment. After 38 years of assignment, the Joint Collector, under the guise of the powers exercised under Section 166(b) of the A.P. (T.A) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli issued proceedings dated 30-09-2001 stating that the petitioner was having patta of Acs.6.23 guntas of land at the time of assignment. Therefore, he does not come under the definition of landless poor. Apart from the above his annual income is Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, he is not eligible for assignment of Government land. The said averment was denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that there was no record available before the respondent to show that the petitioner was having a patta land of Acs.6.23 guntas of land, at the time of assignment and the show cause notice does not contain as to where the land is located and wherein neither the Survey number nor the particulars of the land are mentioned. Except making bald allegations, nothing has been mentioned in the said notice. From a perusal of the record it is obvious that no particulars have been given in respect of the alleged land owned by the petitioner such as name of the village, particulars of survey number and any records to that effect. So far as the annual income of the petitioner also no particulars have been given. In the absence any particulars mentioned hereinabove, the allegations against the petitioner cannot be sustained. When it is a clear case of the petitioner that he was not having any patta land, at the time of assignment, it is for the authorities to verify the record as to whether any land stands in the name of the petitioner, if so, nothing prevents the respondents from adducing the same. Therefore, it is for the respondent authorities to bring it on record to show that the petitioner was having a patta land, other than the land assigned to him, no such particulars have been mentioned either in the show cause notice or in the impugned order. More over, the show cause notice issued in the year 1988 and the impugned order is passed in the year 2001 and no reasons for the delay of all these years is mentioned. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel and taking note of non- filing the counter, I am of the view that the impugned order is bad in law and in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the writ petition can be allowed with the following direction. The impugned order dated 30-09-2001 passed by the Joint Collector, Medak is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent-Joint Collector for fresh consideration, after issuing necessary notice to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of issuing notice and passing appropriate orders, in accordance with law. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 27-04-2009 LSK