IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11133 of 2007 Between: Kummari Venkatachalam S/o.Changalaraya chetty R/o.Chengambakam village, Sathyavedu Mandal Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Tirupathi,. Chittoor District 3 The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue office, Sathyavedu Chittoor District 4 Gogala Adi Kesavulu S/o.Chinna Raghavulu Residents of Chengambakam village, Irugulam post Sathyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District 5 Gogala Muni Krishnaiah S/o.Venkataiah Residents of Chengambakam village, Irugulam post Sathyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not conducting any enquiry and not passing any orders on the legal notice dated 16.4.2007 got issued by the petitioner with regard to the ownership and payment of compensation in respect of Ac.2.00 of dry land comprised in SyNo.22-2B of Chengambakam village, Sathyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary, and against the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 11133 of 2007 09-06-2009 Oral Order: The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 06-02-2008 in this writ petition on 14-02-2008. As the matter involves a narrow issue, the writ petition itself is taken up and disposed of finally. The petitioner is aggrieved that the 2nd respondent has not conducted any enquiry and has failed to pass any order on the ‘legal’ notice dated 16-04-2007 presented by the petitioner wherein the petitioner complained to the 2nd respondent that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had misguided the revenue authorities and got entered their names in the revenue records pertaining to dry land in an extent of Ac.02-00 in survey No. 22-2B of Chengambakam village, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District. According to the petitioner, being a landless poor person he had encroached on an extent of Ac.02-00 of government land in the year 1975, developed the same and rendered it fit for cultivation. On the petitioner’s application, he was granted a ‘D’ form patta -- DKT No. 36/4/86 by an order dated 30-12-1976 by the then Tahasildar and after sub-dividing the land it was assigned survey No.22-2B. The petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the land since the date of his original occupation in 1975. The petitioner also asserts that his name was mutated in all the revenue records as pattedar and in enjoyment of the land in question. He also asserts that the pattedar passbook and title deed was issued to him being patta No.97 and that he had obtained a loan of Rs.15,000-00 from the State Bank of India, Irrugulam Branch on the basis of the security of the said land. According to the petitioner, the State Government had identified several villages of Satyavedu Mandal including Chengambakam village for creating a Special Economic Zone (for short ‘the SEZ’). On the petitioner coming to learn that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had brought in extraneous influence on the revenue authorities and contrived to get their names included as persons in enjoyment of the land assigned to the petitioner (since the 5th respondent was the Sarpanch of the village, who also assisted the 4th respondent in the aforesaid enterprise), the petitioner got issued a lawyer’s notice on 16-04-2007 to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 sensitizing the said respondents that he is the pattedar of the land in question; in possession and enjoyment of the same and that he is entitled to compensation for the acquisition of the said land for the purpose of SEZ. He also requested the 2nd respondent by his representation above to pay him compensation cancelling the entries recording the names of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in respect of the land in question. The grievance in this writ petition is that the 2nd respondent who was the acquisition officer and to deal with the land for the purpose of acquisition for SEZ, did not act on the petitioner’s representation and is proceeding to pass a consent order with a view to favour respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by paying them the compensation despite the petitioner’s exclusive entitlement for compensation of the scheduled lands. With the above factual framework of assertions, the writ petition is filed seeking a consequent direction to the respondents to conduct a detailed enquiry and pay compensation to the petitioner for acquisition of the land assigned to him. The 2nd respondent had filed counter affidavit. This counter admits the assignment of a patta to the petitioner being DKT No. 26/4/86 dated 30-12-1976. It is alleged by the answering respondent that the petitioner did not reclaim the lands since assignment and sold the same to one A. Jaganatham son of A. Kesavulu of Chengambakam village in the year 2003. In paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit, the answering respondent makes an incomprehensible assertion which justifies reproduction. It reads thus: …The pattadar has not reclaimed the land since the assignment and sold the land to Sri A. Jaganatham s/o A. Kesavulu of Chengambakam (V) in the year 2003 vide Chengambakam W.P.No. 11133 of 07 un register sale deed No. 3289 and 3290 Dt. 26/4/03 for valid consideration of Rs. 51250/-. The then Mandal Revenue Officer, Sathyavedu has conducted detailed enquiry and cancelled the assignment made to Sri K. Venkatachalam s/o. Chengalraya Chetty under Sec. 3 (2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of transfer) Act 9/77 vide this office D.Dis. 610/05 Dt. 15/09/05. Since then the land is under control of the Government. It is completely false to say that the land is in the possession and enjoyment of the Pattadar for more than 32 years. It is a fact that the Pattadar was given ROR pass book as the individual has assigned DKT patta before cancellation of DKT under Sec. 3 (2) of A.P. assigned lands (Prohibition of transfer) Act, 9/77 and the said land was resumed to Government vide proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Satyavedu D. Dis. No. 610/2005 dated 15-9-2005. From the above assertion while it is not wholly clear what the 2nd respondent intends to convey, something is stated about the petitioner having sold the land to one A. Jaganatham under unregistered sale deed Nos. 3289 and 3290 dated 26-04-2003 for a valid consideration of Rs.51,250-00. There is a further assertion that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sathyavedu had conducted a detailed enquiry and cancelled the assignment in favour of the petitioner by an order dated 15-09-2005 passed under Section 3 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). In the context of the petitioner’s assertion which clearly implies lack of any knowledge of the cancellation of the assignment in his favour, the 3rd respondent is required to assert and establish that the alleged order of cancellation dated 15-09-2005 purportedly issued under Section 3 (2) of the Act had been passed after a due process of notice and opportunity to the petitioner, who is an admitted assignee of the property. If the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity before proceeding to the cancellation of assignment, any order of cancellation, it is trite, would be a nullity and any consequent physical action of dispossession would be unsustainable. As the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, on the aforesaid analysis is seen to be unresponsive and as the learned Government Pleader concerned is also not present in the Court to assist in comprehension of the averments in the counter affidavit, this Court is constrained to infer that the asserted order of cancellation dated 15-09-2005 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sathyavedu is patently illegal and void for failing to offer a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner prior to the passing of such an order. The counter affidavit also does not at all advert to the allegations in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have managed the revenue authorities and got included their names in the revenue records even though the petitioner was the lawful assignee of the scheduled lands. The counter affidavit does not also dispute the assertion in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner got issued a lawyer’s notice dated 16-04-2007 nor is there any assertion in the counter that the said notice was responded to. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The respondents are directed to consider and pay appropriate compensation to the petitioner expeditiously and in any event within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as per law in respect of the dry land in an extent of Ac.02-00 in survey No.22-2B of Chengambakam village, Sathyavedu mandal, Chittoor District. There shall however be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 09-06-2009 Pvks