IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1929 of 2001 Between: 1 Ms.Munawar Jehan Sadia @ Sadia Rub D/o. Late Syed Abdul Rub & Late Smt.Badrunnisa Begum, R/o. Flat No.104-B, Akber Towers, Malakpet, Hyderabad. 2 Syed Ahmed Maqbool S/o. Late Syed Abdul Rub, Now R/o.in U.S.A.per his G.P.A.Holder Ms.Munawar Jehan Sadia @ Sadia Rub., 3 Laik Maqsood Syed S/o. Late Syed Mohd.Maqbool, Now Residing in U.S.A.per his G.P.a.Holder Ms.Munawar Jehan Sadia & Sadia rub., 4 Mrs.Sara Ali W/o. Ali & D/o. Late Syed Mohd.Maqbool Now Residing in U.S.A. Rep by its G.P.A.Holder Ms.Munawar Jehan Sadia @ Sadia Rub. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, R.R.District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Chevella Division, Domalguda District, Hyderabad. R.R.District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pargi, Pargi Revenue Mandal, R.R.District. 4 Laxman S/o. Sindhya R/o. Naxeerabad Village of Pargi Mandal, R.R.District. 5 Andhya S/o. Jayaram R/o. Nazeerabad Village of Pargi Mandal, R.R.District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.V.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 : AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5: MR.C.R.PRATAP REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 23-10-2000 passed by respondent No.1 and also order dated 23-01-1999 passed by respondent No.3. Heard Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri C.R.Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, and perused the record. Smt Badrunnisa Begum, the mother of the petitioners, filed declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”). The Tribunal, by its order dated 14- 03-1978, declared Smt Badrunnisa Begum as surplus holder of 31.8407 standard holdings of land in excess of ceiling limit. Subsequently, she approached the Tribunal for exclusion of certain lands, which were wrongly computed in her holding. The said application was disposed of by the Tribunal by its order dated 03-04-1993 and revised the holding of the declarant by declaring that she held 13.3826 standard holdings in excess of the ceiling limit. Questioning the said order, the declarant filed an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (for short “the appellate Tribunal”). The said appeal was allowed by the appellate Tribunal by its order dated 02-12-1995 and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. After the remand, the Tribunal passed order dated 27-07-1996, by which it held that the family of the declarant held 9.5492 standard holdings in excess of the ceiling limit. In the said order, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue Divisional Officer has already taken possession of 13.3826 standard holdings, in pursuance of order dated 03-04-1993, and out of the said lands, certain lands were assigned to the landless poor as evident from the Mandal Revenue Officer’s letter dated 03-04-1993. The Tribunal requested the Revenue Divisional Officer to revert the area already taken by retaining 9.5492 standard holdings inclusive of assigned lands and direct the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pargi to complete the assignment of balance area of land immediately. In pursuance of the said order of the Tribunal, the Revenue Divisional Officer addressed letter dated 17-01-1997 to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pargi, wherein he referred to order dated 27-07-1996 passed by the Tribunal and requested the Mandal Revenue Officer to revert the area in excess of 9.5492 standard holdings to the declarant’s family. Purporting to implement the said order, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pargi issued notice in Form-I under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “Act 9 of 1977”) and passed order on 23-01-1999, wherein he ordered to revert the land to an extent of Acs.17.85 cents in Survey Nos. 82 (7-20), 95 (5-28) and 97 (5- 37) to petitioner No.1. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondents 4 and 5 approached respondent No.1. By order dated 23-10-2000, respondent No.1 set aside order dated 23-01-1999 passed by respondent No.3 and left the petitioners free to seek appropriate compensation in lieu of recovery of the lands in possession of respondents 4 and 5. At the hearing, Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Joint Collector-respondent No.1 exceeded his jurisdiction in reversing the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer-respondent No.3. He stated that respondent No.3 passed the said order only in order to give effect to order dated 27-07-1996 passed by the Tribunal, which directed respondent No.3 to give back the land in excess of 9.5492 standard holdings to the petitioners. He further submitted that even if respondent No.1 was not convinced about the legality of the action taken by respondent No.3 in initiating proceedings under Act 9 of 1977, there was no justification for him to make any further observations with reference to the entitlement of the petitioners for recovery of possession of a part of the land which was held to be within the standard holdings of the declarant. Opposing these contentions, Sri C.R.Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, submitted that the action of respondent No.3 in initiating proceedings under the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 is wholly without jurisdiction. He further submitted that if the Tribunal intended to give effect to its final order dated 27- 07-1996, it is bound to follow the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (for short “the Rules”) and hence, respondent No.1 was justified in interfering with the order passed by respondent No.3 by setting aside the same. He also submitted that even according to the Tribunal, the lands assigned to respondents 4 and 5 are within the excess holding of 9.5492 standard holdings and therefore, respondents 4 and 5 are not liable to be evicted from the assigned lands. As regards the issue relating to the action of respondent No.3 in initiating proceedings under Act 9 of 1977, having carefully considered the facts in their entirety, I am of the view that initiation of proceedings under the said Act is wholly misconceived. Admittedly, the Tribunal redetermined the land held by the declarant and according to its order dated 27-07-1996, the petitioners are entitled to be given back the differential extent of land between 13.3826 standard holdings and 9.5492 standard holdings. It is also not in dispute that a part of the said land, which was already taken possession in pursuance of the earlier order of the Tribunal, was assigned in favour of third parties including respondents 4 and 5. Rule 10-A of the Rules envisages the procedure for retransfer of the land vested in the Government as a result of fresh determination of excess land. Letter dated 17-01-1997 addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, can be traced to this Rule. Therefore, if respondent No.3 wanted to implement the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, in order to give effect to the order of the Tribunal, it is incumbent upon him to follow the procedure prescribed under the Rules. But curiously, respondent No.3 had initiated proceedings under the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 and passed the order, which is set aside by respondent No.1. Since respondent No.3 has violated the prescribed procedure to be followed for retransfer of the land, to that extent respondent No.1 is justified in holding that the action of respondent No.3 is wholly erroneous. I do not, therefore, see any illegality in the order passed by respondent No.1 to that extent. Having declared the order of respondent No.3 as invalid, respondent No.1 went further and gave findings with reference to the entitlement of respondents 4 and 5 to retain the land and giving liberty to the petitioners to apply for compensation. In my considered opinion, there was no warrant for respondent No.1 to embark upon the said issue because unless the conditions stipulated in Rule 10-A (2) and (3) (a) of the Rules are satisfied, the District Collector will not have jurisdiction to pass any order on the issue whether the declarant is entitled to reversion of the land or to receive compensation in lieu thereof. Respondent No.1 ought to have left this issue to be decided by the Revenue Divisional Officer. For the above mentioned reasons, order dated 23-01-1999 passed by respondent No.3 is set aside. Order dated 23-10-2000 passed by respondent No.1 to the extent he declared that respondents 4 and 5 are entitled to retain possession of the land and that the petitioners are entitled only to receive compensation in lieu of possession is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for redelivery of the land in excess of 9.5492 standard holdings in terms of Rule 10-A of the Rules, without being influenced by any of the findings given by respondent No.1 in his order dated 23-10-2000. Respondent No.2 shall complete this exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving notices to the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5 and hearing them. The writ petition is, accordingly, partly allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 6th August, 2008 vrn