*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY +Writ Petition No.1375 of 2010 %03.02.2010 #Smt.K.Ramalakshmamma. ..Petitioner. Vs. $ The State of Andhra Pradesh and others. ..Respondents. !Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.V.S.Kumar ^Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Revenue <Gist : >Head Note: ?Cases Referred: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1375 of 2010 ORDER: The husband of the petitioner, by name, K.Narasimha Reddy, participated in Indian Freedom Struggle. It is stated that he has been imprisoned for a period of six months in Alipur jail, by the erstwhile British Government and was also levied fine. The State and Central Governments evolved various schemes for the benefit of Freedom Fighters. One such scheme was, assignment of Government land in their favour, subject to availability. The application submitted by Narasimha Reddy was pending consideration before the Revenue Authorities of Chittor District. One Sri P.Gurrappa, was assigned an extent of Ac.1.00 of land in survey No.682/B1 and Acs.2.00 in survey No.1124 of Basinikonda Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, in the year 1977 and 80, respectively. Alleging that his legal heirs alienated the land to one Mr.N.Pedda Reddeppa, in the year 1989, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalle, the 4th respondent, cancelled the assignment through proceedings, dated 05.09.1990, and resumed the land to the Government. By that time, the husband of the petitioner died, but his application was pending. The land was assigned in favour of the petitioner. One Sri Gopi, the son of Gurrappa-the previous assignee, filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, the 3rd respondent, against the assignment of the land in favour of the petitioner. A peculiar development has taken place. Gopi did not pursue the appeal and it appears that the petitioner also did not enter appearance. However, the 3rd respondent took advantage of the pendency of appeal before him, formed an opinion that there is scarcity of Government land, and on that basis, passed orders, dated 05.09.1990 cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioner. Ever since then, the petitioner is fighting relentless battle. By this time, she had to approach the Joint Collector, and the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, respondents 2 and 1 respectively, thrice. On two previous occasions, the 1st respondent accepted the contention of the petitioner, but has chosen to remand the matter to the 2nd respondent. At the level of the 2nd respondent, utmost apathy was shown and every possible effort was made to oust the petitioner from the land. The latest of such orders is the one, dated 01.09.2008. The petitioner preferred a revision against it before the 1st respondent, together with an application for stay. Complaining that no interim orders have been passed by the 1st respondent and that the Tahsildar is threatening to dispossess her, the petitioner approached this Court. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The scope of the Writ Petition is, in fact, very limited. However, taking into account the fact, that the family of an eminent freedom fighter is made to wage its legal battle for the past several decades before the revenue authorities, and that the petitioner is an octogenarian, this Court has examined the matter on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader made extensive submissions, touching on the merits. The 4th respondent assigned the land in favour of the petitioner, vis-à-vis the application filed by her husband, that was pending. It is a matter of concern that, even while undeserving people were either permitted to grab extensive properties of the Government, or were granted pattas, an eminent freedom fighter, from the State of Andhra Pradesh, who was imprisoned in a jail in Bengal, was not favoured with a small gesture of assignment of agricultural land, even 50 years after the independence. By the time, a good spirited Tahsildar though it fit to honour the freedom fighter, he left this world. The assignment was made in favour of the wife, the petitioner herein. The son of previous assignee of the land, naturally felt aggrieved by the cancellation of the assignment under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Obviously, realizing the weakness of his case, he left the matter at that and did not pursue it. The then Revenue Divisional Officer, acted in a disgraceful manner, in choosing to cancel the assignment made in favour of the petitioner, though the appeal before him was not pursued. The reason, on account of which the assignment was cancelled, was obnoxious, if not absurd. He did not have even a trace of patriotic spirit when he thought of cancelling the assignment made in favour of freedom fighters family, on the basis of unknown reasons. The 2nd respondent mechanically dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Further, he has invented altogether a different reason, while sustaining the cancellation. The petitioner filed revision and the 1st respondent allowed it. However, he remitted the matter to the 2nd respondent. This time, another new ground was invented to sustain the order of cancellation. A revision was filed for the second time. The 1st respondent disagreed with the observations of the 2nd respondent. In stead of giving quietus to the matter, he once again remanded it to the 2nd respondent. This time, an enthusiastic I.A.S. Officer has exhibited all his skills and virtually wrote a thesis, as to how the assignment in favour of the petitioner cannot be sustained, little realizing that, the proceedings started with appeal filed by a previous assignee and that he gave it up. This Court expresses its deep concern as to the manner, in which the various authorities have harassed the petitioner. The Writ Petition is allowed. It is held that the order of cancellation passed against the petitioner is totally untenable, arbitrary and capricious. All the proceedings that ensued thereafter, are set aside. The petitioner shall remain in possession of the land, and respondents 2 to 4 shall not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, over the land, in any manner. The revision preferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent shall be treated as superfluous, and shall accordingly, abate. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.03.02.2010. L.R.Copy to be marked. GJ