THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8053 of 2010 April 13, 2010 Between: Bandi Sathaiah, S/o.Narayana … Petitioner And The District Collector, Karimnagar District And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8053 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner assails the order dated 28.2.2010 passed by the first respondent under Section 4-B of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act). By the said order, second respondent confirmed the order under Section 4-A of the Act passed by the third respondent, who in turn upheld the order of the fourth respondent under Section 4(1) of the Act directing resumption of the land from petitioner and 11 others. The case of petitioner in brief is as follows. Sixth respondent herein was assigned land admeasuring Acs.3.20 guntas in survey No.128 situated at Thangallapally Village of Sircilla Mandal in Karimnagar District, allegedly in 1953. He sold an extent of Acs.1.10 guntas in survey No.128 to petitioner under unregistered sale deed dated 10.5.1976. A regular sale deed was registered on 20.2.1986. Petitioner’s name was mutated in the revenue records and he obtained pattadar pass book. In March 2006, the Tahsildar, Sircilla Mandal, initiated action under the Act. A notice dated 21.3.2006 was issued to show cause as to why land should not be resumed for violation of conditions of D-Form patta. Petitioner submitted explanation on 10.4.2006. Considering the same, fourth respondent passed orders on 04.8.2006 directing resumption of the land. As noticed supra, petitioner was unsuccessful before appellate authority as well as revisional authority. Therefore he filed the instant writ petition. The counsel for petitioner made the following submissions. When the land was assigned to sixth respondent in 1953, there was no condition of inalienation and, therefore, G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25.7.1958, relied on by fourth respondent and the provisions of the Act have no application. According to him, the land in possession of petitioner, which was assigned to sixth respondent in 1953, is not “assigned land” as defined under Section 2(1) of the Act. Nextly, he contends that petitioner is bona fide purchaser and being a landless poor person, he is entitled to protection under Section 3(5) read with 4(1) of the Act. Therefore resumption of the land is unsustainable. Lastly he submits that the revisional authority failed to give reasons and, therefore, the order passed by him is unsustainable. The Assistant Government Pleader submits that the fourth respondent passed resumption orders on 04.8.2006. The appeal before the third respondent was filed beyond the time prescribed for filing appeal under Section 4-A of the Act. The burden lies on the person in possession of the land to prove that he does not violate the provisions of the Act. No effort was made to prove the same before the original authority or appellate authority by producing necessary evidence. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner and others violated the conditions of patta by entering into sale transaction. Petitioner kept the land fallow in violation of condition No.2 of the patta. The conclusions recorded by third respondent are as follows. 1. The petitioners who filed their reply to the show cause notice have not raised their objection with regard to mentioning of the name of the village as Mandepalli instead Thangallapalli which was occurred due to clerical mistake and the petitioners have filed their explanation for the Sy.No.127 & 128 correctly. However, the clerical mistake can be ignored. 2. They have not filed any supportive evidence that the provisions of Act-1977 do not apply to the matter. 3. They have violated the conditions of assignment by entering into sale transactions for the assigned land which attracts the provisions of Act-1977. 4. They have violated the conditions of assignment by keeping the land fallow. 5. According to the copy of patta certificate issued in favour of Challa Lingamaiah, the land was assigned during 2001 and it was kept fallow, thereby violated the condition NO.2 of patta certificate. 6. There are no substantive grounds in the appeal. 7. The appeal was not filed within the time limit as provided under Section 4-A of the Act. Section 4-B of the Act confers revisional power on the District Collector (Joint Collector) or Collector (Assignment) to call for and examine the record of any officer subordinate to him to satisfy as to regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed. Under Section 4-B(2) of the Act, the issue of notice to a person, who is likely to be adversely affected, is mandatory. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the second respondent verified the records, considered the background of the case in detail and came to the conclusion that no interference is called for. Indeed he also refers to the conclusions reached by appellate authority. Therefore to show that the impugned order suffers from lack of reasons is misconceived. As a revisional authority, Joint Collector after verifying the records comes to the conclusion or satisfied that the officer subordinate to him has applied the mind and considered the matter, elaborate reasons need not be recorded. The submission that the Act has no application to pre-1977 assigned lands is misconceived. I n T.P.M.Chowdeswara Rao v Mandal Revenue Officer, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool[1], this Court considered this aspect of the matter. Relying on the decision of Full Bench in Dharma Reddy v Sub Collector, Bodhan[2], this Court held as under. Sri V.Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner however submits that the same principle should necessarily apply to all the purchases made subsequent to the coming into force of the Act where the possession is more than 30 years. The submission cannot be countenanced in view of the judgment of the Full Bench in Dharma Reddy v Sub- Collector, Bodhan, 1987 (1) ALT 124, where this Court considered the question as to whether the Act is prospective or retrospective. Be it noted, the Full Bench categorically held that the Act not only seeks to protect the assignees but also prohibits transfer of the assigned land on or after commencing of the Act and is retrospective in operation which will apply to all the transfers of assigned lands prior to coming into force of the Act. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 21.3.2006 would show that petitioner herein was called upon to show cause as to why land should not be resumed for not bringing the land under cultivation and for violation of conditions in Para VI(iii) of G.O.Ms.No.1406. Curiously the petitioner appears to have not placed any material to discharge the burden that he cultivated the land after purchasing the same in 1976. Therefore no interference is called for in this writ petition. Insofar as the claim of petitioner that being a landless poor person he is entitled to benefit of Section 3(5) of the Act is concerned, he is given liberty to approach the Tahsildar, who may consider the representation if any to be made by petitioner and pass appropriate orders keeping in view Section 4(1) of the Act. The writ petition, subject to observations as above, is dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 13, 2010 YS [1] 2002(3) ALD 53 [2] 1987(1) ALT 124