THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.414 of 2008 (Dated :29-09-2010) Between: M.V.Pratap S/o Dorai Swamy Chittoor District ….Petitioner A n d The District Collector, Chittoor District And others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.414 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by M.V.Pratap seeking mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering his representation dated 17.12.2007 and 07.01.2008 in respect of acquisition of the lands bearing Survey Nos.23 and 24 admeasuring Ac.6-00 in Bandlapalli village, Nimmanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of Ac.3-00 each in Survey Nos.23 and 24 of Bandlapali village, Nimmanapali Mandal. His grandfather acquired three acres of land in Sy.No.23 under DKT patta in the year 1977. An extent of Ac.3-00 in Sy.No.24 was assigned to P.Nagamani under DKT patta. The said Nagamani is his relation. She has been suffering from various ailments, and therefore, he has been cultivating the lands assigned to her. Thus, he is in occupation of Ac.6-00 comprising Sy.Nos.23 and 24. The 3rd respondent is contemplating to dispossess him from the lands on the ground that the lands are required for construction of houses under INDIRAMMA housing Phase-II. The 3rd respondent recommended for grant of house site pattas by canceling DKT pattas on the ground that the assignees have alienated the land to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted explanations on 17.12.2007 and 7.1.2008 and also got issued a legal notice dated 5.10.2007. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalli, Chittoor District-2nd respondent basing on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nimmanapalle Mandal-3rd respondent has yet to take decision with regard to cancellation of the DKT pattas. Pending decision by the 2nd respondent, the beneficiaries are trying to enter into the land forcibly and raise foundations. Hence, this writ petition-invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer stated supra. 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 26.6.20108. An interim stay of dispossession has also been granted. The respondent entered appearance and filed counter. They also moved W.V.M.P.No.2974 of 2008 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 26.6.2008 passed in W.P.M.P.No.434 of 2008. 4. P.V.Narasimha Rao, Tahsildar, Nimmanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District has sworn to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the writ petitioner has not submitted any representation either on 17.12.2007 or on 7.1.2008. Sy. No.23 admeasuring Ac.3-00 of Bandlapalli village was originally assigned to one Chekkala Veerappa @ Mark in Taluk A.M.No.64/4/75, dt.27.2.68. He died intestate leaving behind his son, namely, James. James has three sons, namely Raveendra, Surendra and Jayaraj. Neither the writ petitioner nor his mother is the legal heir of the original assignee Veerappa @ Mark. The writ petitioner by creating an un- registered Will of his mother, forcibly occupied the land in Sy.No.23. The mother of the writ petitioner is not the legal heir of the original assignee and she has no right to transfer the property to her son. The petitioner is in illegal, unlawful possession of the assigned land in Sy.No.23 in violation of the provisions of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 9/77. As per the revenue records, the pattadar is Chekkala Sivarapu Veerappa S/o Gurrappa and the enjoyer is Mooni Vijaya Pratap, who is the Writ petitioner. An extent of Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.24 was originally assigned to J.Nagamuni S/o Mallaiah in Taluk A.M.No.961/4/1377. He enjoyed the land for some years and thereafter, he leased the land to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner is not related to the original assignee. The writ petitioner is therefore in illegal, unlawful possession of the assigned land in violation of the provisions of Section 3 of A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of transfers) Act 9/77. The legal heirs of S.Verappa, who is the original assignee of Sy.No.23, are residing in huts in Sy.No.24. They applied for allotment of house sites in Sy.No.23. Accordingly, proposals were sent for grant of house site pattas and for construction of houses under INDIRAMMA Phase II Housing Programme. The petitioner objected for grant of house sites in Sy.No.23 and issued legal notice. Thereupon, enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar, Nimmanapalle and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle regarding the objections. During enquiry, both the parties entered into a compromise and submitted written statement. According to the written statement, the writ petitioner has no objection for construction of houses in Sy.No.23 by the above three persons and that there is no dispute regarding the houses. Therefore, houses are being constructed with the consent of the writ petitioner only. During the enquiry, it came to light the writ petitioner is in enjoyment and possession of the assigned lands in S.No.16, 17, 23, 24 and 25 in contravention of the A.P.Assigned Lands (POT) Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle has therefore, sent a report to the District Collector in B1/591/NMPL/2006 dt.14.5.2008 recommending for taking action under the above Act 9/77 and other relevant laws. The District Collector in Roc.E7/6835/2008 dated 20.5.2008 issued instructions to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle to take up legal action for violation of provisions of Act 9/77. Action has not yet been initiated to issue notices. In the meanwhile, petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition. As survey numbers 23 and 24 are assigned lands, there is no need to initiate proceedings under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act for taking the lands for the purpose of INDIRAMMA housing scheme. Necessary legal action as directed by the District Collector will be taken under the provisions of A.P.Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 9/77 duly following the procedure. 5. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that he is being dispossessed without following due process of law. The respondents have stated in the counter affidavit that third respondent recommended to 2nd respondent for cancellation of assignments, since the assignees violated the terms and conditions of the assignment. Before action is being initiated under the provisions of A.P.Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 9/77, the writ petitioner rushed to this Court and obtained interim order. Since the respondents have specifically stated in the counter affidavit that they would take necessary steps in accordance with the A.P.Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 9/77, the apprehension of the writ petitioner that he is going to be dispossessed without following due process of law has no merit. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to follow due process of law in the event the petitioner is required to be dispossessed from the lands in his occupation. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.29-09-2010 Note:- Issue C.C within a week (B/o) RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.414 of 2008 DATED : 29-09-2010