IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 21432 of 2000 Between: 1 Molli Suraiah, S/o.Asirivadu R/o. G.Agraharam Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vijayanagaram District. 2 Molli Sinkaya, S/o.Late Bahgari, R/o. G.Agraharam Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vijayanagaram District. 3 Podilapu Surya Narayana, S/o.Narasimham R/o. G.Agraharam Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vijayanagaram District. 4 Molli Asira Naidu, S/o.Sinkaya, R/o. G.Agraharam Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vijayanagaram District. 5 Podilapu Sundar Rao, S/o.Yerraiah, R/o. G.Agraharam Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vijayanagaram District. 6 Ravade Sunder Rao, S/o.Chiteyya, R/o. G.Agraharam Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vijayanagaram District. 7 Molli Bangari, S/o.Sinkaya, R/o. G.Agraharam Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vijayanagaram District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Collector, Vijayanagaram District. Vijayanagaram. 2 The Joint Collector, Vijayanagaram District. Vijayanagaram. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayanagaram District. Vijayanagaram. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Poosapatirega Mandal, Poosapatirega, Vijayanagaram District. 5 The Revenue Inspector, Poosapatirega, Vijayanagaram 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 Pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a Writ declaring the order of the 4th respondent in Rc.No.321/2000, dated:19.10.2000 as without jurisdiction, illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and set-aside the same and to pass such other order or orders as this hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper as are necessary in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.V.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT T he Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 21432 of 2000 ORDER: The order in RC.No.321/2000, dated 19.10.2000 passed by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Poosapatirega Mandal, 4 th respondent herein is challenged on the grounds of jurisdiction, illegality, arbitrariness and violation of the principles of natural justice. By the said order, the 4th respondent directed resumption of the lands assigned to the petitioners. The petitioners were issued D-Form pattas dated 6.12.1997 by the 4th respondent herein in respect of various bits of land situated in Sy.No.33 of Gaitula Chowdavaram, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Condition No.1 of the D-Form patta states that the lands assigned shall be heritable but not alienable. Under condition No.2, the lands assigned are required to be brought under direct cultivation within three years from the date of the order of assignment. Condition No.3 states that cultivation shall be done by the assignee or members of his family or with hired labour under the supervision of himself or the members of his family. Condition No.16 states that the assignment is liable for cancellation if it is found that it is grossly inequitable or was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to misrepresentation or fraud or in excess of the limit of the authority delegated to the assigning oﬃcer or if there was any irregularity in the procedure. The petitioners claim that at the time the lands were assigned to them, the lands were covered by shrubs and also mango saplings. It is their case that they had to pay separately towards the cost of the mango saplings. The details of the said payment are furnished in paragraph No.4 of the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition. The petitioners further claim that after clearing the shrubs existing on the lands, they raised a mango tope upon the lands along with coconut trees. It appears that a notice was issued by the 4th respondent in RC.No.321/2000 dated 29.9.2000 threatening to resume the lands on the ground that the assignees had violated condition Nos.1,2,3 and 16 of the D-Form pattas issued to them. The petitioners were asked to show-cause within seven (7) days as to why action should not be taken in pursuance of the said notice. It is pertinent to note that in the body of the notice, the 4th respondent admitted that the D-Form pattas were granted only two years prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice. The petitioners submitted individual replies to the above show- cause notice on 16.10.2000 stating that they had complied with the conditions of the assignment and that they were in possession and enjoyment of the assigned land, cultivating the same to the knowledge of one and all, including the revenue authorities. The petitioners further stated that if a personal enquiry was conducted in their presence, it would clearly establish that they were in possession and enjoyment of the assigned land. They accordingly prayed for dropping all further proceedings in pursuance of the show-cause notice. It is the case of the petitioners that without conducting any further enquiry into the matter, duly taking them into conﬁdence, the 4th respondent issued the impugned proceedings in RC.No.321/2000 dated 19.10.2000 holding that the assignees had violated condition Nos.1,2,3 and 16 of the D-Form pattas and ordering resumption of the lands. The said order is assailed by the petitioners primarily on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the 4th respondent acted upon an enquiry, which is said to have been conducted by the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram District, the 2nd respondent herein, behind their back. It is further stated that the order is without jurisdiction as the 4th respondent could take action under condition No.2 of the D-Form patta only after the lapse of three years from the date of assignment and as, admittedly, only two years had passed since the date of the assignment in favour of the petitioners, the 4th respondent was not empowered to order resumption of the assigned land on the ground of alleged violation of condition No.2. The further contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the lands were assigned with existing mango saplings and the petitioners had to pay separately for the same. That being so, it was not open to the 4th respondent to baldly state that the petitioners were not cultivating the lands. The petitioners claimed that they developed the mango tope and the same was about 5 years old at the time of ﬁling of the writ petition. It is therefore contended on their behalf that the ﬁnding of the 4th respondent is without factual basis. The petitioners, accordingly, prayed for a declaration that the impugned proceedings dated 19.10.2000 were without jurisdiction, illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and to set aside the same. The 4th respondent ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition, stating that after being satisﬁed that the assigned lands were not being cultivated by the petitioners, the show-cause notice dated 29.9.2000 was issued by his oﬃce. It is stated that as the explanation submitted by the petitioners was not convincing, it was not felt necessary to call upon the petitioners for a further enquiry. It is also pointed out that that though an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners as against the order of resumption, the petitioners challenged the same in this writ petition. It is claimed that in pursuance of the order of resumption dated 19.10.2000, the petitioners were dispossessed from the assigned lands on 22.10.2000. It is reiterated that the petitioners committed violation of condition Nos.1,2,3 and 16 of the D-Form patta and that the order of resumption dated 19.10.2000 is lawful and valid. The petitioners ﬁled a reply to the above counter speciﬁcally claiming that they continued to be in possession of the assigned lands and that the statement made in the counter that they were dispossessed on 22.10.2000 was factually incorrect. They supported this plea by ﬁling a set of cist receipts dated 21.8.2004 evidencing payment of cist in respect of the assigned lands. With regard to the plea of an alternative remedy being available to them, it is noticed that the petitioners had stated in their writ aﬃdavit itself that as the appellate authority was subordinate to the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram District, the 2nd respondent herein upon whose enquiry report, the 4th respondent had passed the impugned proceedings, the appellate remedy available to them was rendered nugatory. It is an irrefutable fact that the show-cause notice dated 29.9.2000 recorded that only two years had lapsed since the date of assignment. In the light of this admission, the violation of condition No.2 did not arise as on the date of the said notice. Though the said notice alleged violation of conditions 1,3 and 16, no particulars or details pertaining to the alleged violation are forthcoming from the contents of the said notice. Further, in spite of the speciﬁc averment made by the petitioners, in their explanation to the show-cause notice that they were in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the assigned lands, cultivating the same to the knowledge of one and all including the revenue authorities and calling upon the 4th respondent to hold a personal enquiry in their presence to establish this fact, the 4th respondent failed to do so and on the other hand relied upon an enquiry which is said to have been conducted by the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram District, apparently behind the back of the petitioners. It is not forthcoming either from the proceedings or from the counter aﬃdavit as to what necessitated the higher oﬃcer to undertake such an enquiry into the matter. The ﬁndings of the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram in the so called enquiry were never put to the petitioners nor were they given an opportunity to rebut the same. Prima facie, this action on the part of the authorities manifests a clear and blatant violation of the rule of ‘audi alteram partem’. Signiﬁcantly, the absence of particulars and details in the show-cause notice with regard to the alleged violation of conditions 1,3 and 16 of the D-Form pattas, is echoed in the impugned proceedings and the 4th respondent baldly concluded that the said conditions were violated. The vagueness of the show-cause notice in this regard culminated in the same vagueness being reiterated in the ﬁnal proceedings dated 19.10.2000. The counter aﬃdavit ﬁled in the writ petition also does not throw any light on the alleged violation of the conditions 1,3 and 16 of the D-Form pattas. The impugned proceedings are therefore found to be without application of mind in so far as the alleged violation of these conditions is concerned. In the light of the fact that the enquiry by the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram was the foundation for the impugned proceedings passed by the 4th respondent, I ﬁnd force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there would be no point served in ﬁling an appeal against the said proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Vizianagaram, who is subordinate to the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram District. In any event, the plea that an alternative remedy constitutes a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be slotted into a straitjacket formula and each case will have to be examined on its own merits. The contention of the respondents that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioners, therefore, does not commend itself to this Court. So far as the issue of the actual resumption of possession is concerned, the fact that the petitioners are in a position to prove their possession long after their alleged dispossession, clearly indicates that the act of their dispossession, if any, by the respondents was only on paper. In any event, the impugned proceedings being the basis of such alleged dispossession are found to be illegal and unsustainable and accordingly, their dispossession or otherwise does not have any signiﬁcance at this stage. The impugned proceedings dated 19.10.2000 are therefore without proper application of mind in addition to being devoid of material particulars and being in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. The writ petition is accordingly allowed declaring the order of the 4th respondent in Rc.No.321/2000 dated 19.10.2000 as illegal and unsustainable and consequently setting aside the same. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR. J 22nd OCTOBER, 2008 Tsr Copy to: 1 The Collector, Vijayanagaram District. Vijayanagaram. 2 The Joint Collector, Vijayanagaram District. Vijayanagaram. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayanagaram District. Vijayanagaram. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Poosapatirega Mandal, Poosapatirega, Vijayanagaram District. 5 The Revenue Inspector, Poosapatirega, Vijayanagaram District. 6. The Government Pleader for Assignment, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 7. Two C.D.Copies.