IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4899 of 2002 Between: Kummarakuntla Peda Saidulu … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Khammam & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M.R.K. Chowdary 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.4899 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in permitting respondent No.4 to lay a board indicating that the land in dispute belongs to him under the instructions of respondent Nos.1 to 3, as illegal and without power or authority. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the land before taking appropriate action by following the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas (Land Transfer) Regulation 1 of 1959 (for short, ‘Regulation 1/59’), Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 or Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘Act 9 of 1977). The petitioner averred that he purchased an extent of Ac.4.00 of land in Sy.No.1/7 of Laxmidevipalli Village from the pattadar Sri Talupunuru Peraiah and his son Sri Brahmaiah under a registered sale deed dated 16.04.1968. He further averred that he also purchased another extent of Ac.3.20 guntas in Sy.No.1/8 of the very same village under a registered sale deed of even date from Sri Talupunuru Peraiah and that he sold Ac.1.22 ½ guntas in favour of a person by name Sri Kopparapu China Venkateswarlu for establishment of a stone crushing unit. The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, initiated proceedings under Regulation 1/59 as amended by Regulation 1/70 in respect of the said land sold by the petitioner and ordered for eviction of Sri China Venkateswarlu. Appeal ﬁled by the said purchaser before the agent was dismissed and WP.No.16057 of 1996 ﬁled by him in this Court is pending. The petitioner pleaded that except to the extent of Ac.1.22 ½ guntas, the remaining land has been in his possession and enjoyment. He stated that respondent No.4 evidently approached respondent Nos.1 to 3 for assigning a piece of land for construction of a building for Government Degree College and consequently respondent Nos.1 to 3 displayed the sign board indicating that the said land belongs to respondent No.4 Degree College. He further submitted that without taking appropriate steps in law the respondents cannot interfere with his possession of the said land. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Palwancha, it is averred that out of the extent of Acs.1000.00 of Laxmidevipalli Village, an extent of Acs.500.00 was declared as Reserve Forest of Suravaram Block vide G.O.Ms.No.1192 dated 20.02.1954, that out of the balance extent of Acs.500.00, the then Tahsildar assigned an extent of Acs.85.00 to the tribals and non-tribals on 08.05.1959, that in G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958, in pursuance of which the said assignments were made, condition of non-alienation was stipulated and that out of Acs.85.00, an extent of Acs.3.20 guntas in Sy.No.1/8 was assigned to Sri Talapanuri Kotaiah and an extent of Acs.4.00 in Sy.No.1/7 was assigned to Sri Talapunuri Peraiah. It is further averred that as the said assignees have not made any eﬀorts to bring the land under cultivation within the stipulated period, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Palwancha, issued show cause notices to all the assignees as to why the assignments should not be cancelled, that the notices were served on 31.10.1987 and that no explanation was oﬀered by the assignees. He further averred that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer cancelled the assignments after obtaining prior permission from the competent authority vide proceedings No.A/3217/87 dated 18.05.1989. He also pleaded that following order dated 18.05.1989, the assignees were physically evicted from the lands under panchanama and the property was kept in the custody of the Government and that the orders of cancellation have become ﬁnal, as no appeals were ﬁled against them. It is stated that Laxmidevipalli Village is abutting Palwancha Town, which is developing rapidly due to establishment of Thermal Power Plant, Sponge Iron India Limited, Navabharat Ferro Alloyes Limited etc., and that some of the land grabbers, with a view to grab the lands, fabricated sale deeds to convert the lands into house plots. That the Government allotted an extent of Acs.15.00 on 01.11.2001 for construction of Degree College, as the existing college has no pucca building and the possession of the land was handed over. With regard to the petitioner’s claim over the extent of Acs.3.20 guntas in Sy.No.1/8, it is averred that the said land was assigned to Sri Talapanuri Kotaiah, but the petitioner claimed to have purchased the same from Sri Talapanuri Peraiah, who has no right over the said land. As regards Acs.4.00 of land in Sy.No.1, it was maintained that Sri Kopparapu Chinna Venkateswarlu encroached into the said land and he was evicted after following due process of law and that WP.No.16057 of 1996 ﬁled by him is pending in this Court. The answering respondent further pleaded that if the petitioner purchased the land prior to the cancellation of assignment, he ought to have questioned the cancellation orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Palwancha. He denied the claim of the petitioner that he is in possession of the land and asserted that possession of the land was taken on 18.08.1989 and the same was handover to the College, which cleared the shrubs and erected the signboard. No reply aﬃdavit is ﬁled controverting the averments contained in the counter affidavit. Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the two parcels of land were purchased from Sri Talapanuri Peraiah and his son Brahmaiah, who were non-tribals, prior to commencement of Regulation 1/70 and hence he is entitled to hold the property. He relied on the proceedings initiated under Regulation 1/59 in this regard. According to the learned counsel, even if the revenue authorities found that the lands purchased by the petitioner are assigned lands, he cannot be evicted without following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 and since no such procedure is followed, the entire action of cancellation of assignments and dispossession of the petitioner is illegal. On this premise, he contended that a direction needs to be issued to the respondents to restore the petitioner’s possession. In the writ petition, the only document ﬁled by the petitioner is order in CMA.No.34 of 1985 passed by the Agent of the Government. The said order was passed in the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner and Kopparapu Chinna Venkateswarlu, to whom the petitioner sold an extent of Ac.1.22 ½ guntas under unregistered sale deed dated 15.12.1969, against order dated 05.08.1985 passed by the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Palwancha in case No.10/85/Kgm. By the said order, the Special Deputy Collector, while directing the ejectment of Kopparapu Chinna Venkateswarlu from Ac.1.22 ½ guntas, restored the land to the original pattadar Sri Talapanuri Paraiah. He also directed ejectment of the petitioner from Acs.2.17 ½ guntas by restoring the same to Sri Talapanuri Peraiah. The Agent partly allowed the said appeal by declining to interfere with the order of the Special Deputy Collector to the extent of ejectment of Kopparapu Chinna Venkateswarlu from Ac.1.22 ½ guntas on the ground that the sale transaction between the petitioner and the said person was hit by Regulation 1/70. However, the order under appeal was set aside to the extent of Acs.2.17 ½ guntas, which was purchased by the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 16.04.1968 i.e., prior to Regulation 1/70. From the order of the Agent referred to above, it is quite evident that the sale transaction, which stood in favour of the petitioner to an extent of Acs.2.17 ½ guntas was upheld and it is reasonable to presume that the petitioner was in possession of the said property in pursuance of the said transaction. In the face of this order, it is rather surprising that the revenue authorities, in complete ignorance of the petitioner’s possession over the said land, purportedly cancelled the assignment granted in favour of the petitioner’s vendor. When once the sale transaction in favour of the petitioner was upheld in the context of the provisions of Regulation 1/59, the very initiation of proceedings against the original assignee for cancellation of assignment on the purported ground of his failure to bring the land under cultivation and cancelled the assignment on the ground of violation of condition of patta, cannot be countenanced. With the purchase of the property by the petitioner, in ordinary course, he becomes its owner. If the land purchased by the petitioner happened to be an assigned land, he can be denied his right to enjoy the said land by taking recourse to the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 alone and the action of the respondents to cancel the assignment on the ground of violation of condition of patta after the petitioner’s sale transaction was upheld by the Agent of the Government under the provisions of Regulation 1/59 is wholly irrational. Under the provisions of Act 9 of 1977, it is incumbent upon the respondents to give notice to the original assignee and the petitioner before passing appropriate order to cancel the assignment. In this view of the matter, the stand of respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the assignment itself was cancelled on the ground of the original assignee not bringing the property under cultivation cannot be sustained. As regards the extent of Acs.3.20 guntas, the petitioner claimed to have purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 16.04.1968 from Talapanuri Peraiah. In the counter aﬃdavit, respondent No.3 speciﬁcally asserted that the said land was assigned to Talapanuri Kotaiah. The petitioner has not ﬁled any reply aﬃdavit denying the said averment. Therefore, it is reasonable to accept the respondents’ plea that the land was assigned to Talapanuri Kotaiah. If the petitioner purchased the said property from a person other than an assignee, no rights over such property ﬂow to him. Therefore, I am of the view that to the extent of the said property, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in this writ petition. The petitioner is left free to avail his remedy before the appropriate forum to assert his rights over the said property. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed to the extent of Acs.2.17 ½ guntas in Sy.No.1/7 and a writ of Mandamus shall issue as prayed for. The writ petition is dismissed to the extent of Acs.3.20 guntas in Sy.No.1/8 subject to the observations contained hereinabove. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.11.2008 ES