IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18784 of 2005 Between: B. Balaji S/o. Vittoba, Karimnagar District, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mandal Revenue Officer, Sircilla, Karimnagar District, 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Sircilla, Karimnagar District, 3 District Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar, 4 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings in Proc.No. B/1907/2002 dt. 15-7-2002 of the 1st respondent herein in as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977 and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a direction to the respondents herein to pay compensation at full market value to the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac. 5.00 in S.No. 449 of Sarampalli Village, Sircilla Mandal, Karimnagar District and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare proceedings No.B/1907/2002, dated 15-07-2002 passed by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and also contrary to the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977 and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation at full market value to the petitioner for the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 gts., in S.No.449 of Sarampalli Village, Sircilla Mandal, Karimnagar District. It is the case of the petitioner that an extent of Ac.5-00 cents of land situated in Sarampalli village, Sircilla Mandal, Karimnagar District was assigned to him on 29-06-1976. Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Further by spending his hard labour and huge money developed the assigned land and dug a bore-well and irrigating the same with the help of an electric service connection. That being so, the first respondent issued proceedings No.B/1907/2002, dated 15-07-2002 stating that the patta granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the assignees have failed to develop the land and brought it into cultivation from the date of assignment. According to the petitioner, he dug a well in the said land in the year 1976 by taking loan and in the year 1990 he took electricity connection for the said land vide Service Connection No.234. In the year 1990 the petitioner got the said land ‘podi’ and the said Podi number was given as 449/2. In the year 2004 a news item appeared in Vartha Telugu Daily, dated 26-08-2004 that the petitioner’s land along with other lands would be assigned to landless poor persons as house site pattas. According to the petitioner no notice was issued to him. Fearing dispossession, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.16886 of 2004 and the same was dismissed stating that no Mandamus can be granted on mere news items. Further he submitted a detailed representation to the first respondent on 28-08-2004 explaining that he has been cultivating the land continuously and in possession and enjoyment of the same. In the month of July, 2005, however, the impugned proceedings dated 15-07-2005 was issued. Therefore, this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the patta was granted in favour of the petitioner as early as on 29-10-1976. The petitioner has been cultivating the land since then and in fact by dint of hard labour and spending lot of money, dug a bore well and got electric connection for drawing water for irrigating the fields. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that lands were not put to cultivation within three (3) years from the date of allotment in the year 1976 is untenable and the proceedings No.B/1907/2002, dated 15-07-2002 does not stand to scrutiny of law. During the pendency of the writ petition as per the directions of this court an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Siricilla in I.A.No.300 of 2000 in W.P.M.P.No.28030 of 2007 in W.P.No.187 of 2005 and the said Commissioner after visiting the land along with the Surveyor and Senior Assistant of the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Siricilla, identified the said land bearing Sy.No.449 of Sarampally village. Petitioner and the Surveyor both identified the land in Sy.No.449 of Sarampally village which was assigned to the petitioner by the Government and inspected the entire Ac.5-00 gts. Both the petitioner and Surveyor informed the Commissioner that after implementing the said land in Setwar, the assigned land of the petitioner numbered as Sy.No.449/2. The Commissioner also drawn sketch (map) of Sy.No.449 (449/2) of Sarampelly village. The said land of Ac.5-00 gts., was bifurcated by a Gravel Road which leads from Sarampally village to Obulapur village, Sircilla Mandal and its width was 33 feet. It is also further stated that Ac.5-00 gts., of land was brought into cultivation, made into wet field by making plots (madulu) for cultivation of paddy crop. The ridges (gatlu) of said madulu are still in existence. Further the Commissioner found a well in the said five acres of land and a bore well was sunk in the said well. The depth of the well is 48’ feet, width is 12’ feet and length is 18’ feet. The bore well was sunk to a depth of 180’ feet. There is a lift irrigation pipeline laid from the said well to middle of the said fields to irrigate the entire five acres of land through well and bore well. The length of the said lift irrigation pipe line is of 120 yards (360’ feet). There was also an electrical pole near to the said well but there was no electric motor to the said well on the day of inspection. The electric line was upto the said well only and also there were 10 ‘Kanuga’ trees in the said land. The Commissioner also found that 2 R.C.C. Slab constructed houses were completed, three houses constructed with brick wall up to roof level, constructed basements up to 3’ feet height for 42 plots, 14 plots excavated for construction of basements by the beneficiaries of the house plots assignees and also a thatched shed in the said land. Thus, from the report of the Surveyor the land was identified by the Surveyor and the Tahasildar concerned. It is seen from the report of the Commissioner that well was dug and bore well as well as electrical poles are available. From this it cannot be said that the land was never put to cultivation after it was assigned to the petitioner on 29-10-1976. There is ample proof to show that the petitioner has been cultivating the land continuously. May be the motor pump was removed when the land was taken over by the weaker sections for house plots. It does not mean that the petitioner was not cultivating the land. The efforts made by the Tahasildar for resuming the land seem to be not on the basis of the true facts as available. May be the Tahasildar wanted to resume this land for providing house sites to the weaker sections. If the respondents wanted to do the same, they may do so by invoking land acquisition proceedings. Of course, in a case of assigned land also, they can pay the compensation equivalent to that of the market value as is decided under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Instead of paying the compensation to the petitioner, the respondents are bent upon denying very right and title of the petitioner saying that he did not put into cultivation of the said land and therefore, the same was sought to be resumed under the impugned proceedings. In view of the above discussion I am of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that the petitioner never cultivated the land nor put to use after it was allotted to him on 29-10-1976. Further no notice of any kind was issued before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondents is liable to be set aside. Now, since the land had already been resumed and allotted as house site pattas to third parties, some constructions are raised, as found by the Advocate Commissioner, the respondents are directed to pay compensation as per law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _________________ C.V. RAMULU, J Dated 9th July, 2009 pn/ksh HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18784 of 2005 9th July, 2009