THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.12721 and 13640 of 2002 June 15, 2010 Between: Prabhaleti Chinna Ellalu, S/o.Chinna Ramaiah … Petitioner And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Khazipeta Manddal, Kadapa District And another ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.12721 and 13640 of 2002 COMMON ORDER: The lone petitioner in the first writ petition and twelve petitioners in the second one assail the notice issued by the first respondent, namely, Mandal Revenue Officer (now, the Tahsildar), Khazipeta being No.A/374/2000, dated 07.11.2000, individually to all of them. The true English transliteration of Telugu notice reads as under. Mandal Revenue Office, Khajipeta. Notice – A/374/2000 NOTICE Sub: Land Ceiling Act 1973 – K.Buddayapalli Village, Kajipeta Mandal, Cuddapah District – Lands pertaining persons who have delivered as surplus to the Government – Notice issued as per the Land Ceiling Act regarding vacation of the lands occupied by others – Reg. The landlords of K.Buddayapalli Village of Kajipeta Mandal have delivered the possession of the surplus land. But you are enjoying the Government lands without the permission or obtaining any patta from the Government. This is against the orders of the Government. It is hereby directed that you shall vacate the lands within 7 days from the receipt of the notice. Violation of this is punishable under law. Patta No. Name of the Land Sy.No. Land encroached Encroacher Extent Prabulaty Chinna Ellalu, 41/3 1.40 S/o..Chinna Ramaiah, 41/4 4.35 Rangapuram 42/3 6.64 ------------ 12.39 ------------ Mandal Revenue Officer, Khajipeta. Except the fact that the extent of land directed to be surrendered by each of petitioners varies, survey numbers and particulars of the lands are same. It is the case of petitioners that they purchased the lands under registered sale deeds in 1989 from M/s.Deventranath, Madhava Rao, Prabhakar Rao and Sreekanth Rao, who are sons of Krishna Rao. Petitioners in second writ petition allege that they purchased small extents of lands from M/s.Suresh and Raghavendra Rao, sons of Gopinadha Rao, and that the Government has no right, title or interest in the property. It is their further case that they obtained Pattadar Pass Books/Title Deeds (PPBs/TDs), which were issued by the Tahsildar himself after conducting enquiry. These PPBs are issued in June 1998. They contend that without conducting any enquiry, first respondent issued impugned notices and is trying to dispossess the petitioners by forcibly evicting them. This Court while admitting the matter on 17.7.2002 passed interlocutory orders directing the respondents not to dispossess petitioners pending disposal of writ petition. The Tahsildar, Khazipeta, filed similar counter affidavits sworn in on 22.7.2007 in both the writ petitions. The relevant statement of defence reads as under. … … … it is submitted that, the Village K.Buddayapalli of Khajipet Mandal is a Shotrium Village. The total extent of K.Buddayapalli Village is 396.99 acres. The Shotriumdar of Panyam Village of Kurnool District have an extent of 356.58 Acres and 40.41 acres is minor Inam land which is in others possession and enjoyment. As per Village Accounts 10(1) the land stands registered in the names of Uppu Bheemasena Rao, S/o.Krishna Rao and Uppu Madhava Rao, S/o.Krishna Rao. Sri P.V.Sreedham, S/o.Bheemasena Rao and his legal heirs filed declaration as per A.P.L.R., Act 1973 before the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool. The Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool has passed orders on 10.2.1977 that the declarant is in excess in surplus 3.3598 S.H. Accordingly the declarant Sri P.V.Sridhar has surrendered certain lands of K.Buddayapalli in C.C.No.3766/NDL/200, dated 10.9.93 to an extent of 3.3598 S.H. 1/3rd Joint Share including the Sy.Nos.41/3, 41/4 and 42/3 to an extent of 12.39 cents. The above lands were already alienated by the declarant or his relatives. Hence Notice only was issued to the enjoyers of the lands to vacate the land as per A.P.L.R. Act 1973. It is submitted that the purchase made by the petitioners is contrary to Section 17 of the Act and therefore the petitioners have no right over the land. The counsel for petitioners and Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area) made their submissions. As rightly pointed out by the petitioners’ counsel, the particulars of the land admeasuring 3.3598 Standard Holdings, which was allegedly surrendered by the declarant under Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (the Act), are not given in the counter affidavit. It is not clear either from the impugned notice or counter affidavit as to whether enquiry as required under Section 10(4) and (5) of the Act and Rule 7(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (the Rules) is conducted or not. In the absence of any such enquiry at the time of accepting the surrender of surplus land after due notice to alienees, the surrender cannot be said to be valid. Admittedly though the land is situated in K.Buddayapalle Village of Khazipeta Mandal in Kadapa District, the same was claimed by the legal representatives of Shotriumdar of Panyam Village in Kurnool District. Therefore, there is likelihood of declarant withholding the particulars of land, which was alienated either before or after coming into force of the Act. In such a situation, the Tahsildar ought to have conducted enquiry, though ordinarily when once surrender is accepted by the Land Reforms Tribunal in accordance with Section 10 of the Act and Rule 7 of the Rules, such enquiry is not necessary. But, in this case, since petitioners claim that they purchased lands under valid sale deeds, got necessary mutation and obtained PPBs, it would be better that the Tahsildar may conduct enquiry into the validity of the title and possession of respective extents of lands in possession of the petitioners. After such enquiry is conducted, it is always open to the Tahsildar to take appropriate action. If the petitioners aggrieved by such action, they can prefer appeal before Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. The writ petitions, for the above reasons, are accordingly disposed of, setting aside the impugned notices and giving liberty to first respondent to conduct detailed enquiry after giving notice to petitioners. This exercise may be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) June 15, 2010 YS