IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15767 of 2002 Between: 1 B.Rajeshwari W/o.B.V.Ramanaiah No.65, 6th street, Kamaraja Nagar, Avadi, Madras-71 2 B.Rudreswara Rao, S/o. lateB.V.Ramanaiah SQAE(Vdh)DGQA Complex, Vikhroli Ministry of Defence. Mumbai-83 3 Pothina Parvathi, W/o. Appa Rao. H.No.1-45,P.No.65, 6th street,Kamaraja Nagar Avadi, Madras-71. 4 P.Lakshmi, W/o.Venkataramana, Eruvada village, Rawada P.O., ParavadaS.O., VIZAG. 5 P.Devaki W/o.Padmanabhan. No.65, 6th street, Kamaraja Nagar, Avadi, Madras-71 6 P.Saraswathy, W/o.Ramesh. No.1B, Rajeswari Street, Perambur, Madras-11 7 P.Padmavathy W/o. Radha Krishna. No.87/805/1, Kattaboman Street. Viduthalai Nagar,Madipakkam, Madras-91 8 B.Krishna Rao, S/o. B.V.Ramanaiah No.13/2, Bharathy Road, Perambur, Madras-11 ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Regional Divisional officer, Narasipatnam, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer. Atchitapuram, Visakhapatnam. 4 Kolli Simhachalam, W/o. Nukkanna. Dopperla(P.O), Atchitapuram, Vizag. 5 Kolli Chitamma W/o. late Davala Appalaswamy. Dopperla(P.O), Achuthapuram Mandal, Vizag. 6 Palli Rama Naidu W/o. late Davala Appalaswamy. Dopperla,V.A.O. Dopperla(P.O), Achuthapuram Mandal, Vizag. 7 Palli Varahalamma, W/o. Palli Rama Naidu. Dopperla(P.O), Achuthapuram Mandal, Vizag. 8 Konupala Ammu Naidu, Bandaru palem village, Vadachipurapalli P.O., Paravada S.O., Anakapalli-531021 9 Kolli Rama Rao, S/o.Nokkanna. Dopperla(P.O), Achuthapuram Mandal, Vizag. 10 Kolli Venkatalakshmi, W/o.Kolli Rama Rao. Dopperla(P.O), Achuthapuram Mandal, Vizag. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI M.SATISH KUMAR FOR SRI.K.V.SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE (ASSIGNMENTS) Counsel for respondents 4 to 10: None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents 1 to 3 in restoring the possession of land admeasuring Acs.5.00 in Survey No.168/2B1 of Dopperla Village, Atchuthapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District to the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) for respondents 1 to 3. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 10 is not present at the hearing. Petitioners 2 to 8 are the children of petitioner No.1. The husband of petitioner No.1, late B.V.Ramanaiah, was allotted an extent of Acs.5.00 of land in Survey No.168/2B1 of Dopperla Village, Atchuthapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in the year 1961. While it is the case of the petitioners that the allotment was by way of assignment, the official respondents aver that the assignment was only tentative and no D-form patta was granted. Possession of the said land fell into the hands of respondents 4 to 10. The petitioners feign ignorance on the alleged transfer of the land to respondents 4 to 10 and according to them, the said respondents have high-handedly encroached into the land, in question, taking advantage of the absence of the original assignee. Proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”) for resumption of the land on the ground that the land was alienated by one Pilla Venkata Ramana, who is the brother-in-law and general power of attonery of the original assignee. The land was eventually resumed to the Government on 18-04-1994 and respondents 4 and 5, who were found to be in physical possession of the same, were evicted therefrom. Respondents 4 to 10 filed W.P. No.8030 of 1994 questioning the order of resumption, which ended in its dismissal by order dated 19-12-1997. Another effort made by the said respondents to regularize their possession did not meet with success with the disposal of another writ petition, namely; W.P.No.26125 of 2000, filed by them in this Court. By order dated 29- 11-2006, this Court directed respondent No.2 therein i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the appeal said to have been filed by respondents 4 to 10. This Court also directed status quo, as on that day, to be maintained till the disposal of the appeal. Though, on the previous occasion, the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 10 took adjournment to report to this Court about the status of the said appeal, today he is not present to give any information in that regard. Be that as it may, the grievance of the petitioners, in this writ petition, is that the official respondents have failed to follow the provisions of Section 4 of the Act in not restoring the possession of the land to the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased assignee, B.V.Ramanaiah. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the official respondents, respondent No.3, inter alia, stated that as the original assignee alienated the land in violation of the conditions of assignment, the question of restoring possession to the legal heirs does not arise. They have further maintained that while the resumption proceedings have taken place in the year 1994, the petitioners kept quiet for seven long years and made a representation for the first time in the year 2001 for restoration of the land. It is also averred that none of the petitioners is residing at Dopperla Village, where the lands are situated, and that all of them have been residing outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, at Madras and that even if the land is restored to the petitioners, they will sell away the same. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to Section 4 of the Act. However, the said provision has undergone an amendment. It is appropriate to reproduce the pre and post amended provision of Section 4 (1)(b) hereunder. Prior to amendment: Sec.4(1)(b): Restore the assigned land to the original assignee or his legal heir, or where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such assignee or legal heir, resume the assigned land to Government for assignment of landless poor persons in accordance with the rules for the time being in force: Provided that the assigned land shall not be so restored to the original assignee or his legal heir more than once, and in case the original assignee or his legal heir transfers the assigned land again after such restoration, it shall be resumed to the Government for assignment to any other landless poor person. Post-amendment: Sec.4(1) (b) restore the assigned land, other than those lands/areas as may be notified by the Government from time to time in public interest and for public purpose:- i. to the original assignee if he or she is eligible as per the norms fixed in this behalf, as on the date of restoration for one time; or ii. assign to other eligible landless poor person: Provided that where the original assignee or his legal heir, after the first restoration transfers the assigned land, the land shall be resumed for assignment to the other eligible landless poor: Provided further that if no eligible landless poor persons are available in the village/area, the resumed land will be utilized for public purpose. Explanation:- For the purpose of this clause “Public Interest” and “Public Purpose” shall mean and include, the Weaker Section Housing, Public Utility, Infrastructure development, Promotion of Industries and Tourism or for any other Public purpose; The amendment to Section 4(1)(b) of the Act was given retrospective effect by dating the same back to 21st January, 1977, the date on which the Act came into force. A comparison of the two provisions would make it clear that while under the pre amended provision restoration of resumed land to the original assignee or his legal heirs was the ordinary rule, unless such restoration was not reasonably practicable, under the amended provision, the right to restoration to the original assignee or his legal heirs is circumscribed by many limitations. A wider discretion is conferred on the authority in the matter of restoration under the amended provision. If it is found that the restored land was needed for public purpose in public interest, and the same is notified or where it is found that the original assignee was found to be not eligible as per the norms fixed as on the date of the restoration, there was no need for restoring the land to the original assignee or his legal heirs. In the instant case, petitioner No.1, who is the wife, petitioners 3 and 5 to 7, who are the daughters, and petitioner No.8, who is the son, of the original assignee respectively, are shown to have been residents of Madras and petitioner No.2, another son of the original assignee, is shown to have been working in Ministry of Defence, Mumbai. There is no averment in the affidavit that they continue to be the landless poor persons on the date of restoration or that they have been eking out their livelihood on agriculture, for which purpose the land was originally assigned to late B.V.Ramanaiah. It is also not the case of the petitioners that if the land is restored, they will come back to the village and carry on agricultural operations. On these admitted facts, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for restoration of the land in view of the amended provision of Section 4(1) (b) of the Act. Another reason for my disinclination to grant relief to the petitioners is that, it is admitted by both the learned counsel that the assigned land has become part of Visakhapatnam Urban agglomeration and has developed into an urban land, which cannot be any longer utilized for agricultural purposes. The very purpose of assignment of the land to the original assignee was for carrying on agricultural operations. In the changed scenario, where the utility of the land for agriculture purpose has ceased, it would only become a windfall for the petitioners, if the land is directed to be restored to them and defeat the very purpose for which the assignment was made to the original assignee. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to grant the prayer sought for by the petitioners. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 4th March, 2009 vrn