IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :12268 of 2005 Between: Andhra Rastra Adimjati Seva Sangam, Regd.No.89 (A Society Registered under Societies Registration) Act XXI 1860) rep., by its President Chadala Janaki Rama Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of A.P., Hyderabad & others . .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 14-07-2003, whereby the grant made in favour of the petitioner in respect of 18 cents and 60 cents comprised in CAS.Nos.243/1A and 243/1/B2 of Nellore Town by way of alienation has been cancelled by respondent No.3. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. On its approaching the Government of Andhra Pradesh, it was assigned an extent of 60 cents for the purpose of establishing and running two hostels for girls and boys belonging to scheduled tribes in the year 1947. Another extent of 18 cents was alienated in favour of the petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.2142 dated 16-10-1959. The petitioner constructed buildings and is accordingly running hostels. The petitioner claimed that in order to augment its income, it submitted an application along with plans to Nellore Municipality for construction of shop rooms in boys hostel building. The petitioner also submitted an application on 02-02-2002 to respondent No.3 for ratification of its action in constructing the shop rooms. After calling for a report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order, whereby he directed resumption of the land along with buildings thereon, on the ground that the construction of shop rooms is against the terms and conditions imposed by the Government. At the hearing, Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is wholly without jurisdiction. He invited my attention to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, wherein he stated that the Government may resume the land wholly or in part with any buildings thereon, in the event of infringement of any conditions of grant and submitted that even if the respondents found any violation of conditions of grant, it is only the Government, which is competent and has jurisdiction to initiate action for resumption of land. He also submitted that respondent No.3 completely ignored the report submitted by respondent No.4 while passing the impugned order. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) submitted that since construction of shop rooms is contrary to the terms of grant, respondent No.3 is justified in canceling the assignment. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the only ground on which respondent No.3 resumed the land is that the Vice President of petitioner-society started constructing shopping complex without obtaining permission from the District Collector, which is a must as per the Government/Proceedings of the Board of Revenue, Hyderabad and, therefore, the construction taken up by him is against the terms and conditions imposed by the Government/Proceedings of the Board of Revenue, Hyderabad relating to allotment of land. Neither of the parties filed the proceedings under which the lands have been allotted in favour of the petitioner. However, in paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit, a reference is made to certain terms of G.O.Ms.No.2142, dated 16-10-1959, including condition (d), (i) and (k) which read as under: (d) No building other than those specified in condition shall be constructed on the land without the permission of the Collector of the District. (i) The Government may resume the land wholly or in part with any building there on in the event of the infringements of any of the conditions of the grant. In the event of such resumption no compensation shall be paid for any improvements that may have been affected or others works that may have been executed on the land by the grantees and the grantee shall not be entitled for repayment of any amount that may have been paid to the Government for Grant. If there are buildings on the land, the Government may direct the grantee to remove them. (K) The Government may resume the land wholly or in part with any buildings there on in the event of the infringements of any of the conditions of the grant. In the event of any such resumptions no compensation shall be paid for any improvements that may have been effected or others works that may have been executed on the land by the grantees if there are buildings on the land, the Government may direct the grantee to remove them. No doubt, condition (d) stipulates that no buildings other than those specified in condition shall be constructed on the land without the permission of the Collector of the District. In the report submitted by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3, he lauded the service being rendered by the petitioner to the students belonging to the schedule caste, scheduled tribe and backward classes and stated that the petitioner is doing the best service for the welfare of scheduled tribes. While explaining the circumstances under which the petitioner constructed shop rooms, respondent No.4 recommended for grant of permission (ratification) for the construction in question. Undoubtedly, if condition (d) is construed literally, construction of shop rooms without the permission of the District Collector may amount to violation of condition of grant. But respondent No.3 cannot be oblivious of the report of respondent No.4 and make a pedantic approach in resuming the land on the technical ground that the shopping complex was constructed without specific permission of the District Collector. In the impugned order, he has not adverted to the contents of the Revenue Divisional Officer, leave alone differing with the opinion of the Revenue Divisional Officer. In my considered view, the action of respondent No.3 in cancelling the grants, which were made more than four decades back, is wholly unjustified and patently arbitrary. Leaving aside this aspect, even assuming that the petitioner made a technical departure from the conditions contained in the grant by constructing shop rooms without obtaining prior permission of the District Collector, according to the terms of the grant as reproduced in the counter affidavit of respondent No.3, it is only the Government which has competence to resume the land. Neither respondent No.3 has pleaded in the counter affidavit that the power of Government to resume the land has been delegated to him nor the Assistant Government Pleader at the hearing pointed out any statutory/Executive power vested in respondent No.3 to pass the impugned order of resumption. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is wholly without jurisdiction. Hence, the said order is quashed. This order, however, does not preclude the Government to initiate appropriate action if it so chooses after giving notice to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.Nos.15614 of 2005 and 15616 of 2005 and WVMP.No.2850 of 2005 are disposed of as infructuous. _________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt:18.06.2008 Usd