IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 12698 of 2001 Between: Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Member Kuchimanchi Somasundaram, s/o. late Sri Chittem Raju, Hindu, Jaggampeta Mandal, EastGodavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The state of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by the District Collector, East Godavari District, Collector's Office, Rajahmundry, E.G.Dt. 2 The Sub Collector, Rajahmundry, Sub Division, Sub Collector's Office, Kakinada-4. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajanagaram Mandal, Rajanagaram Rajahmundry Revenue Division, E.G.Dt. 4 Ramineedi Sri Venugopalaswamy, S/o. late Sri Seshadri garu, Gantalamma Veedhi, D.No.31-10-27, Rajahmundry, Pin: 533101 (Donar's son) 5 Kandreddi Satyanarayana, S/o. Pandurangarao, G. Yerrampalem, Rajanagaram Mandal, E.G.Dt. .....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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring that the impugned action of respondents 1 to 3 to grant pattas to the 3rd parties with respect to the lands belonging to the petitioner A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board viz., Ac. 3.86 cts in S.No.73 of G. Yerrampalem village, Rajanagaram Mandal, of E.G.Dt., donated by the 4th respondent's family, is illegal arbitrary, capricious and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and opposed to law and to pass necessary orders which are deemed ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ERANKI PHANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.12698 of 2001 ORDER: The Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board, Hyderabad, is before this Court challenging the action of the respondent authorities, that is, the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, East Godavari District, the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry, and the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Rajanagaram Mandal, Rajahmundry, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, in seeking to grant pattas to third parties in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioner Board. 2. The aﬃdavit ﬁled by the petitioner Board in support of its writ petition reflects the following averments:- One Sri Ramineedi Seshadri, the father of Sri Ramineedi Sri Venugopalaswamy, the 4th respondent herein, donated an extent of Acs.10.00 cents of land in various survey numbers of G.Yerrampalem, Kopavaram and Jambupatnam villages in East Godavari District to Sri Acharya Vinobha Bhaveji. The subject controversy is with regard to the land admeasuring Ac.3.86 cents in Sy.No.73 of G.Yerrampalem village in Rajanagaram Mandal of East Godavari District. The said donation was made on 06.06.1964. Thereafter, the petitioner Board came into existence under the provisions of A.P. Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965 (the Act of 1965). Insofar as the lands donated by Sri Ramineedi Seshadri are concerned, a preliminary notiﬁcation under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1965 was issued on 21.04.1994 calling for objections, if any, with regard to the gifting of the said lands. As no objections were received, the ﬁnal notiﬁcation under Section 15 (4) of the Act of 1965 was also issued. As the name of the village was wrongly mentioned, an ‘Errata’ was also published in the A.P. Gazette dated 26.01.1995. Consequent to the publication of the ﬁnal notiﬁcation under Section 15 (4) of the Act of 1965, the right, title and interest of the donor in the said land and the other lands gifted by him, vested in the petitioner Board with eﬀect from 06.06.1964, being the date of the donation. The petitioner Board issued a patta in respect of the subject land admeasuring Acs.3.86 cents in Sy.No.73 of G. Yerrampalem village in favour of Sri Kandreddi Satyanarayana, the 5th respondent herein, under its proceedings dated 04.01.1995 treating him as a landless poor person. While so, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Rajanagaram, is said to have made a complaint on 04.11.1996 with regard to the status and eligibility of the 5th respondent for such allotment of patta on the ground that he was a relation of the donor, was also having other lands and resided at another village. Acting thereupon, the petitioner Board issued a show cause notice to the 5th respondent on 30.12.1996 calling upon him to ﬁle his explanation. The 5th respondent submitted an explanation dated 24.01.1997 asserting that he was a landless poor person and that the allegations made against him were not true and correct. While matters stood thus, the petitioner Board claims to have come to know that the Revenue authorities were proposing to allot the subject land under the Mahila Janma Bhoomi programme and issue pattas to eligible candidates. This fact was said to have been brought to the notice of the Board by the 5th respondent and upon enquiry the petitioner Board conﬁrmed this state of aﬀairs from the oﬃce of the Sub Collector. The petitioner Board approached this Court by way of the present writ petition asserting that the revenue authorities had no right whatsoever over the lands which had vested in the petitioner Board and accordingly, did not have the jurisdiction to either cancel the assignment made by the Board or to undertake assignment of such land by itself. 3. This Court, by an interim order dated 27.06.2001, ordered the respondents not to grant pattas in respect of the lands in question in favour of any third parties. 4. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, the 3rd respondent herein, stating as follows:- The donation in favour of Sri Acharya Vinobha Bhaveji by the 4th respondent’s father is admitted. The assignment made by the petitioner Board in favour of the 5th respondent insofar as the subject land is concerned is also admitted. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Rajanagaram, also conceded the fact that he had made a recommendation to the petitioner Board to cancel the allotment made in favour of the 5th respondent on the ground that the allottee was not utilizing the land and the same was being used by the legal heirs of the donor. It is also conceded that a recommendation was made to assign the said land in favour of various identiﬁed landless poor persons. According to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Rajanagaram, the petitioner Board unnecessarily approached this Court without verifying the facts and it is categorically stated that the assignment in favour of landless poor persons would be made only after obtaining permission from the petitioner Board. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Board and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents. 6. In the light of the averments made in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Rajanagaram Mandal, it is clear that the petitioner Board’s apprehension that the revenue authorities were attempting to cancel the assignment made by it in favour of the 5th respondent was not founded on fact. However, the statement in the counter that the assignment would be made with the permission of the petitioner Board does not commend itself for acceptance. Once the lands donated to the Bhoodan Movement vested in the petitioner Board by way of a ﬁnal notiﬁcation under Section 15 (4) of the Act of 1965, it is not open to the revenue authorities to seek to exercise any jurisdiction over such lands, be it for the purpose of assignment or cancellation thereof. Normally, it is for the Board alone to undertake such an exercise in respect of the lands, which are vested in it. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an unreported judgment dated 16.12.1976 of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ramachander & others vs. District Revenue Oﬃcer, Mahabubnagar in W.P.No.4503 of 1975. In that case, this Court held that it is only the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board that is empowered to cancel the grant under Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the Act of 1965 and it was not open to the revenue authorities to cancel the assignment made by the Board. Such cancellation was held to be without jurisdiction. The above position of law would apply not only to the cancellation of assignments, but also to the assignment to be made in respect of the lands vested in the petitioner Board. Under Rule 9 of the A.P. Bhoodan and Gramdan Rules, 1965, conditions are prescribed for the grant of lands by the petitioner Board. The rule not only speaks of such assignment, but also provides for the cancellation of such assignment. 8. In the light of the above statutory position and also the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.4503 of 1975, it is clear that the revenue authorities have no role to play in the assignment and the cancellation of assignments of lands which vested in the petitioner Board under Section 15 (4) of the Act of 1965. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of holding that it is not open to respondents 1 to 3 to either cancel or grant pattas in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.3.86 cents in Sy.No.73 of G. Yerrampalem village of Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, which vested in the petitioner Board. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR,J 10.11.2008 v v