IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 3318 of 2001 Between: 1 Ogge Bikshapathi, S/o.Rajaiah, R/o.Ramannapet Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. 2 Muthineni Narasaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, R/o.Ramannapet Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3 Muthineni Mallamma, w/o. Late Narsaiah 4. Muthineni Mallesham, s/o. Late Narsaiah, 43 years. 5. Muthineni Srinivas, s/o. late Mallesham, 40 years 6 T.Chandrakala, w/o. Kumaraswamy. 7. B.Rajakala, w/o. Prabhakar, r/o. Bachannapet village and Mandal of Warangal District. 8. M.Bharathi, w/o. late Satyanarayana 9 M.Gnaneshwari, d/o. late Satyanarayana 10 M.Yashwanth, s/o. late Satyanarayana 11 M.Arun s/o. late Satyanarayana. (Petitioners 3 to 11 are brought on record as L.Rs of deceased 2nd petitioner as per court order Dated 03.09.2007 in WPMP.No.18569 of 2005) ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Joint Collector, Nalgonda District. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, Nalgonda. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramannapet, Nalgonda. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or a Writ one particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to declare the first petitioner as owner and Pattedar of Land of one Acre and 26 guntas of dry land situate at Ramannapet Village and Mandal, Nalgonda district declaring the actions of the Respondnets as illegal, untenable and against the facts and principles of natural justice and violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh rights in land Pattadar pass book Acts and consequently orders of all Respondents merged with orders of Government passed in Memo.No.14140/A.S.4(2/95) dated;1.5.1998 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Department directing the eviction of the first petitioner above from the land of Ac.1-26 gts in the Sy.No.691/ of Ramannapet Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.BICHAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: It appears, under the panchanama dated 16.03.1970, the 2nd petitioner, who died during pendency of this writ petition, gave consent to offer his land to an extent of Ac.2.00 covered by Sy.No.691 situated at Ramannapet village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, to the Revenue Department for construction of Tahsil office, and in exchange of the said land, the Government decided to give Ac.1.26 gts. of the land in Sy.No.691 of the same village to the 2nd petitioner. According to the petitioners, pursuant to the said panchanama, the possession of the land of the 2nd petitioner was taken over by the Revenue Department, and later on, at the behest of the 2nd petitioner, the then Tahsildar initially assigned Ac.1.15 gts. in Sy.No.691 of Ramannapet village and Mandal of Nalgonda District and subsequently assigned 0.11 gts. of the same survey number i.e., Sy.No.691 of Ramannapet village and Mandal of Nalgonda District, to the 1st petitioner, thus the total extent of the land assigned to petitioner No.1 was Ac.1.26 gts, and with regard to the said assignment, petitioner No.1 was issued laoni pattas. While so, it appears on the complaint given by the villagers of Ramannapet village, an enquiry was conducted and the then Tahsildar of Ramannapet, vide his proceedings dated 20.06.1979, cancelled the assignment granted in favour of the 1st petitioner on the ground that the 1st petitioner has violated the laoni Rules as laid down under G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st petitioner preferred appeal to the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, Nalgonda District and the same was dismissed on 30.06.1988. Thereupon, the 1st petitioner carried the matter in revision to the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Land Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, who, by his orders dated 29.12.1994, dismissed the revision confirming the orders passed by the 3rd respondent. Challenging the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, a Revision has been preferred to the 1st respondent-Government and that too was dismissed on 01.05.1998. Assailing the order of the 1st respondent, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that though a panchanama was conducted and the land of the 2nd petitioner was sought to be exchanged with the subject land, the proposal of such exchange was not accepted by the higher authorities and, therefore, the same was not given effect to. But, however, on 10.04.1970 the 2nd petitioner has relinquished the land in an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.615 of Ramannapet village, for the purpose of construction of Tahsil office, without any conditions. It is also stated that the assignment of the subject land in favour of the 1st petitioner was not in exchange of the land donated by the 2nd petitioner, however it was assigned by the then Tahsildar to the 1st petitioner for agriculture purpose. It is stated that on the complaint given by villagers of Ramannapet village, an enquiry was conducted and the then Tahsildar, Ramannapet, by his proceedings dated 20.06.1979, cancelled the assignment granted in favour of the 1st petitioner on the ground that the 1st petitioner has violated the patta Rules laid down in G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958 by using the land for purposes other than agriculture, and the said order was confirmed by all the appellate and revisional authorities. It is also stated that under a cover of panchanama, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Ramannapet resumed the land of Ac.1.21 gts. out of the subject land to the Government leaving balance land of Ac.0.05 gts., wherein the 1st petitioner constructed a pucca RCC building. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that pursuant to the understanding of exchange under the panchanama dated 16.03.1970 and at the behest of the 2nd petitioner, the subject land was assigned to the 1st petitioner and, therefore, the 1st petitioner has become the absolute owner of the subject land and he has been paying the land revenue for the subject land and also paying electricity charges for the borewell installed in the subject land. He contends that, though the subject land assigned to the 1st petitioner was in lieu of the land given by the 2nd petitioner, the very issuance of loani pattas in respect of the subject land in the name of the 1st petitioner, instead of issuance of regular pattas, is itself misnomer, and the action of the revenue authorities in cancelling the said pattas, on the ground that the land assigned was not used for the purpose for which it was assigned, clearly shows the illegality on their part. Learned counsel also contends that since the land assigned to the 1st petitioner was in exchange of the land offered by the 2nd petitioner, the case of the 1st petitioner is not attracted by the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, and moreover his case is governed by the loani Rules, 1950 framed under Section 172 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, which do no prohibit conversion of assigned land, after ten years of such assignment, for using the same for the purpose other than the purpose for which it was issued. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the orders passed by the respondent authorities, reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record. From a perusal of the orders passed by the respondent authorities, it is clear that though the authorities have considered the matter in detail, they have not dealt with the aspects as to whether the panchanama dated 16.03.1970 relied upon by the petitioners was given effect to and whether the assignment of the subject land to the 1st petitioner was really made as per the said panchanama, as contended by the petitioners, and without there being proper adjudication on these questions, the correctness or otherwise of the cancellation of the pattas granted in favour of the 1st petitioner cannot be decided. Therefore, the orders passed by the respondent authorities are liable to be set aside and the matter needs to be reconsidered afresh. In view of the above, the orders passed by the respondent authorities are set aside and the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, Nalgonda District, to consider the matter afresh right from the day on which the panchanama dated 16.03.1970 was said to have been conducted and pass appropriate orders as per law, after hearing the parties, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the possession of the 1st petitioner shall not be disturbed. However, in case if it is not possible for the 3rd respondent to confirm the assignment made in favour of the 1st petitioner, he shall invoke the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the land acquired from the 2nd petitioner and pay compensation as required under the law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 23.06.2009 v v