IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17393 of 2007 Between: Sk. Rahim S/o. Abbas R/o.Maibunagar H/o. Peddireddigudem (V) Chandrugonda (M) Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Addl. Agent to Government/Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 2 The Special Dy. Collector, Tribal Welfare, Bhadrachalama, Khammam District. 3 The Tahasildar, Penuballi (M) at Penuballi, Khammam 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 to issue writ or order preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the panchanama prepared by the 3rd Respondent on 24-3-2007 supplied to the petitioner on 8-8-2007 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble COurt deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Sk.Rahim with a prayer to issue a writ or direction, preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the panchanama prepared by the Tahsildar, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District-3rd respondent on 24.03.2007 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.18.39 guntas comprising Survey No.254/6, situated at Lingagudem village, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District. Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 (for short, ‘the Regulation, 1959’), on the ground that his possession is in contravention of the provisions of the Regulation, 1959. The primary authority ordered for ejectment of the petitioner on 21.01.2007. It is the version of the petitioner that the order copy was not served on him. On coming to know of the passing of the order, he filed an appeal before the Agent to the Government, Khammam, on 01.06.2007 and subsequently, the same was transferred to the Additional Agent to Government, Project Oﬃcer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District-1st respondent. He also moved an application seeking stay of the operation of the order passed by the primary authority. There being no action on the stay application, he approached this Court by ﬁling W.P.No.13525 of 2007. This Court disposed of the writ petition, by order dated 28.06.2007. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder: “Having regard to the facts of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner on – 1.06.2007 after giving reasonable opportunity to all the parties concerned and till the disposal of the said appeal, status quo with regard to the possession obtained as on today shall be maintained. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.” It is stated in the writ aﬃdavit that the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner before the 1st respondent is pending consideration. Whileso, a panchanama came to be conducted by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Penuballi, whereunder the possession of the land is stated to have been handedover to the Village Administrative Oﬃcer for security purpose. The relevant portion of the translated version of the said panchanama reads as hereunder: “On the advice of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, I and Village Administrative Oﬃcer, Lingagudem, on this the 24th day of March, 2007 reached the agricultural land, and on the presence of the Panchas on the basis of the Order of the L.T.R.Case No.329/2006/PNB, Dt:21.01.2007, Form F of the Tahsildar, Pennuballi Mandal Proceedings No.B/3508/2006, Dt:15.03.2007, are collected the measurements of the land Sy.No.254/6 an extent of Ac.25.33 which is under the control of the Respondent was handed over by us on 24.03.2007. And on the presence of us on the same day it was handed over to the Village Administrate Oﬃcer for security purpose, its boundaries are as follows: East : Sri Paddam Singaiah’s property. West : Sri Kommineni Bhaskara Rao’s property. North: Sri Paddam Peda Nagesh’s property. South: Sri Paddam Pulla Rao’s property.” The panchanama conducted by the Mandal Revenue Inspector is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. 3rd respondent ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit. P.R.Y.Chakravarthy, Tahsildar, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District, has sworn to the counter-aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the order copy passed by the primary authority was sought to be served on the petitioner, but the petitioner refused to receive the same. Para.8 of the counter-aﬃdavit needs to be noted and it reads as hereunder: “8. In reply to Para.4, it is submitted that the possession of the land measuring Ac.25.33 gts. in Sy.No.254/6 at Lingagudem village was taken into Government custody under cover of Panchanama following due procedure & witnesses were also present while conducting Panchanama. The respondents in LTR Case No.329/2006/PNB namely Sk.Mahaboob Bee and (9) others have refused even to receive the orders of Spl.Dy.Collector, TW, Bhadrachalam dated 21.01.2007 as such the orders were served by way of aﬃxing orders on the land. As such it is not correct to say that the 3rd Respondent has prepared the paper Panchanama and anti date.” 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for execution of the order passed by the primary authority an application is required to be ﬁled and thereupon the petitioner is put on notice and such a procedure is not followed and therefore, the panchanama allegedly conducted on 24.03.2007 is not legal and proper. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Mamillapalli Chinakoteswara Rao v. M.R.O., Buttaigudem Mandal, W.G. Dist.[1]. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner avoided to receive the copy of the order passed by the primary authority and therefore, service has been eﬀected by way of aﬃxture and in which case, the petitioner cannot be permitted to complain of the proceedings initiated consequent to the ejectment order passed by the primary authority. 7. A fact remains that the order passed by the primary authority is under challenge before the appellate Authority-1st respondent. The appellate Authority has not passed any orders despite direction given by this Court in W.P.No.13525 of 2007. The land in dispute is stated to have been under the custody of the Village Administrative Oﬃcer. By keeping the land in the custody of the Village Administrative Oﬃcer, no beneﬁt is going to be derived either to the Government or to any one except depriving the petitioner from enjoying the same pending the appeal. 8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to continue to be in possession of the land pending disposal of the appeal ﬁled by him before the appellate Authority-1st respondent subject to his depositing Rs.36,000/- for each crop in a year. The petitioner shall deposit the said amount before the Tahsildar, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District-3rd respondent before entering into cultivation of the land. No costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:17th October, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} [1] 2005 (3) ALT 88 = 2005 (5) ALD 126