IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 1663 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04/02/2008 in WP NO : 1842 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Mukkera Obulamma, W/o. Venkata Ramana, r/o. D.No. 10/20, Konnepalle Village, Mammillapalle Gramapanchayat, CK Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District. 2 Paccharam Narasamma, W/o. Palakondaiah, R/o.D.No.10/20, Konnepalle Village, Mammillapalle Gramapanchayat, CK Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 District Collector Kadapa. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer Kadapa 3 Tahsildar C.K. Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR.S.S.BHATT Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1663 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard both sides. 2. This Writ Appeal is filed assailing the order, dated 04.02.2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, in Writ Petition No.1842 of 2008. 3. The relief sought for in the said writ petition was for issuance of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings vide Ref.No.E/ 246/06, dated 08.10.2007, passed by the second respondent therein, as arbitrary and illegal. 4. Appellants are the writ petitioners and respondents are the respondents in the said writ petition. 5. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the said writ petition. 6. From the averments made in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, it could be seen that each of the writ petitioners was in occupation of the assigned land in an extent of Ac.1-50 cents, situate in Mamillapalli Village of C.K.Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District, and DKT pattas were granted to them to that effect in the year 1994. 7. In the proceedings, dated 08.10.2007, it was mentioned that notices, dated 17.09.2007, have been issued to all the assignees, including the writ petitioners, calling for objections, if any, for resumption of the said assigned lands and to prove that they were the assignees of the said lands in order to pay necessary compensation/ex-gratia, as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.1307 Revenue (Assign-I) Department, dated 23.12.1993. 8. It is the specific contention of learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners that principles of natural justice requires that notices are to be issued to the writ petitioners, who are the assignees of marginal extents of lands, before resumption of the said assigned lands, but, in the instant case, no notices have been issued to the writ petitioners. Hence, he prays to allow the writ appeal. 9. But, there is no positive proof on record to the effect that without issuing any notice to the writ petitioners, the respondents have proceeded with the resumption of the said assigned lands, which are in possession of the writ petitioners. 10. As already noticed above, notices, dated 17.09.2007, have been issued to all the assignees, including the writ petitioners, calling upon them to appear before the Tahsildar to raise objections, if any, for resumption of the said assigned lands and also for the purpose of payment of compensation/ex-gratia, as contemplated in the said G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993. 11. It is not coming forth as to whether the writ petitioners have filed any objections pursuant to the said notice. But, it is the specific contention of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners that no notices have been issued to the writ petitioners at all. He further specifically contended that the signatures on the notices do not belong to the writ petitioners. 12. When on the one hand, it is on record that notices were issued to the writ petitioners by the authorities concerned on 17.09.2007, calling for objections, if any, for resumption of the assigned lands, on the other, it is the contention of the writ petitioners that the signatures on the notices do not belong to them at all. 13. This aspect is a pure question of fact, which cannot be resolved nor can be gone into by this Court, while exercising the writ jurisdiction. 14. The learned single Judge, however, having regard to the facts and circumstances, observed that the Government has the power to resume the said assigned lands, as the same is for the public purpose, however, subject to the payment of compensation/ex-gratia as contemplated in the said G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993. 15. It is settled law that even though the land is assigned to individuals, the true owner of the assigned land is always the Government. In other words, merely because the land is assigned to a third party, as per the Scheme or the Rules of the State, it does not mean that the State had parted with all the rights, whatsoever, over the said land - perhaps, the only exception is when the land was sold away for a price. Even this aspect need not be gone into nor much significance be attached to it, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 16. Nevertheless, it is the right of the Government to resume the land for public purpose, subject to certain conditions, which includes payment of compensation/ex- gratia under the said G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993. 17. It is for that purpose, precisely, notices, dated 17.09.2007, were issued to the writ petitioners calling for objections, if any, for resumption of the said assigned lands. 18. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances, even though a serious dispute is raised by the writ petitioners that notices were not issued to them, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity or irrationality. 19. Furthermore, it is to be seen that even the question as to whether notices were issued or not can also be agitated by the writ petitioners by way of filing an appeal before the appellate authority. Therefore, when an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the writ petitioners by way of filing an appeal, it is always expedient for them to avail the same. 20. For the foregoing reasons, in the interest of justice, we feel it expedient to direct the first respondent to give an opportunity to the appellants-writ petitioners to file an appeal before the appellate authority, if not already filed, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon filing such an appeal, the first respondent, who is the appellate authority, shall consider all the facts and circumstances, including the aspect of issuance or non-issuance of notice to the writ petitioners and the effect thereof, and pass appropriate orders, on merits, in accordance with law, within three months therefrom. Till such time, the appellants-writ petitioners are permitted to continue in possession of the said assigned lands, if not already dispossessed. 21. Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ appeal is disposed of and the impugned order is confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 12th December 2008 DR .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 District Collector Kadapa. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer Kadapa 3 Tahsildar C.K. Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District. 4 2 CCS to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 5 2CD copies