IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8106 of 2005 Between: Primary Fishermen's Co-operative Society Ltd., Jangaon, rep by President Yerramalla Bhaskar Babu ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., rep by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department of Government of Andhra PRadesh 2 The District Collector, Warangal 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, Warangal District 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Jangaon, Warangal 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 may be pleased to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing a writ of Certiorari or any other suitable writ or writs order or direction, to produce the entire records in proceedings Revision ﬁle No. E5/764/03 dated 10-11-2004 of Joint Collector, Warangal and set a side the same by declaring that the order dated 18-12-2001 passed by the third respondent and conﬁrmed by the Joint Collector, Warangal (2nd Respondent) in Revision case No. RC. E5/764/03, dt 10-11-2004, as ilelgal, arbitrary and without Jurisdiction and consequently pass suitable order or directions to the respondents redeliver (byway of restitution) the entire land bearing S.No. 53/1, admeasuring Ac.9-01 guntas situate at Jangaon Revenue Village forthwith and award damages for illegal acts of respondents in resuming the land without due process of law and pass such other order or orders as are deemed ﬁt in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BANKATLAL MANDHANI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8106 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Certiorari to quash order, dated 10.11.2004, passed by the Joint Collector, Warangal, by declaring the order, dated 18.12.2001, passed by respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner Society is the Primary Fishermen Co- operative Society of Jangaon. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.2782, dated 28.06.1980, whereunder an extent of Ac.10.00 of land in Sy.No.53 of Jangaon Village was alienated in favour of the petitioner Society at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per acre subject to payment of stamp duty, demarcation charges, tree value and land revenue. The petitioner claimed that it was put in possession of Ac.09.01 gts. on 04.07.1987 by the Revenue Inspector, Jangaon. It is alleged in the aﬃdavit that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Jangaon, addressed letter, dated 21.03.2000, to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Jangaon, wherein he alleged that the land alienated in favour of the petitioner was not being utilized for the purpose for which it was alienated for the last 7 or 8 years, and that, on the recommendation of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Jangaon, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Jangaon, vide his proceedings, dated 15.06.2002, instructed the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer to resume the land. The petitioner speciﬁcally averred that it was not served any notice, before the land was purported to be resumed. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of resumption passed on 18.12.2001 by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Jangaon, the petitioner ﬁled a Revision under Section 4-B of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). The said revision was dismissed by the Joint Collector, Warangal. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. At the outset, it is required to be noticed that the revision ﬁled by the petitioner before the Joint Collector, Warangal, was totally misconceived, because the petitioner assumed that the land was resumed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer under the provisions of the Act. However, as it has turned out, the land was resumed for violation of conditions of the order under which the land was alienated to the petitioner Society. Therefore, the prayer in the writ petition to the extent of setting aside the order of the Joint Collector, Jangaon, cannot be granted, as the said order is non est in law. 4. The only question, which remains for consideration, is whether the order of resumption passed by respondent No.3 was preceded by any notice or not. While the petitioner has not ﬁled a copy of the said order on the plea that the same was not served on it, no counter aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the respondents nor record has been produced on his behalf. 5. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue sought time for ﬁling counter aﬃdavit. The writ petition is pending for the last three years and on 16.06.2008 when W.P.M.P.No.10745 of 2005 was ﬁled by the petitioner for an interim direction to the respondents not to change or alter the nature of the lands, while declining the said prayer, this Court directed posting of the writ petition for ﬁnal hearing. Though the respondents have knowledge of the said order and had adequate time to ﬁle counter aﬃdavit, they failed to ﬁle the counter aﬃdavit. Therefore, I proceeded to decide the case on merits. 6. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is categorically pleaded that the petitioner Society was not served with any notice before the land was resumed. As this speciﬁc plea is not controverted by the respondents, the said plea deserves to be accepted. Even assuming that the petitioner indulged in violation of the conditions of grant by not utilizing the property for the purpose for which it was granted and also by alienating the same, he is entitled to a notice and an opportunity of hearing before the land is resumed. 7. In this view of the matter, the resumption of the land which was granted in favour of the petitioner on market value is in violation of principles of natural justice and, hence, the same cannot be sustained. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed in part to the extent indicated above. The order of resumption passed by respondent No.3 is declared as illegal. Liberty is given to the respondents to initiate proceedings afresh for resumption of the land, after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 29.08.2008 v v