IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 10826 of 2001 Between: Chakilam Venkata Subrahmanyam, S/o C.Venkatesan R/o H.NO.6-3-663/15A, Jaffer Ali Bagh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner of Land Revenue, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole. 4 Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukuru, Prakasam Distict. 5 Mandal Revenue Officer, Tarlubadu Mandal, Tarlubadu, Prakasam District. .....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 issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the government in issuing G.O.Ms.NO. 232, Revenue (Assn.II) Department, dated 29-3-2001 as illegal, arbitrary, without authority, unreasonable and unconstitutional and consequentially to direct the respondents No.232, Revenue (Assn.II) Department, dated 29-3-2001 seeking to cancel the patta that was granted by way of assignment in the years 1980 and 1993 in favour of the petitioner in respect of Ac. 3.96 cents situated in Kalujuvvalapadu Village Tarlubadu Mandal of Prakasam District Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SUDHIR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 10826 of 2001 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the Government in issuing G.O.Ms.No.232, Revenue (Assn.II) Department, dated 29-3-2001 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently directing the respondents to refrain from in any way giving effect to the G.O.Ms.No.232, Revenue (Assn.II) Department, dated 29-3-2001 seeking to cancel the patta that was granted by way of assignment in the years 1980 and 1993 in favour of the petitioner in an extent of Acs:3-96 cents situated at Kalujuvvalapadu village, Tarlubadu Mandal of Prakasam district and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Under the impugned G.O.Ms.No. 232, Revenue (Assn.II) Department, dated 29-3-2001, whereunder the District Collector, Prakasam has been directed to take necessary action and report with regard to the irregular assignment made to the ineligible persons i.e., the petitioner herein to an extent of Ac:2-00 in Survey No.1/5/4 of Kalujuvvalapadu village, Tarlubadu Mandal of Prakasam district to an extent of Acs:3-96 cents in Survey No.115/A and 2-A situated in Kalujuvvalapadu village, Tarlubadu Mandal, Prakasam district, is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a poor person. Pursuant to his representation made to the-then Tahsildar, he was assigned an extent of Acs:2-05 cents of land in Survey No.115/A and an extent of Ac:1-46 cents in Survey No.115/2 situated in Kalujuvvalapadu village, Tarlubadu Mandal, Prakasam district in the year 1980-93 respectively and ever since from the date of assignment, the petitioner was also issued “D” form patta. 4. While so, on 10-10-1994 the Sub-Collector issued a show cause notice to the petitioner that the assignment that was made in favour of the petitioner was an irregular assignment. Therefore, why such assignment shall not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted the explanation denying the allegations made against him. Thereafter, the petitioner did not notice anything but ultimately he came to know that the Government issued the impugned G.O., directing the District Collector to take necessary action and report the compliance to the Government with regard to the cancellation of irregular assignment that was made in favour of the petitioner. The said impugned G.O., appears to have been issued basing on the letter Rc.No.B2/689/95, dated 22-3-1995, Rc.No. B2/689/95, dated 26-7-1995 and the Government Memo.No.53261/Ass.II(1)/95-1, dated 19-8-1995 and also basing on the letter from the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in Ref.No.B1/765/95, dated 25-4-1995 and 19-9-1995. 5. This Court granted interim stay of impugned order on 31-12-2001. On behalf of the respondent-Government, a counter-affidavit and vacate stay petition was filed denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and contended that the petitioner is a Class-I Contractor and he was not residing in the village Kalujuvvalapadu of Tarlupadu Mandal of Prakasam district but he belongs to Kolabheemunipadu village of Markapur Mandal, and therefore, he is ineligible for assignment of the land. 6. Basing on the said counter-affidavit and vacate stay petition being filed on behalf of the Government, this Court modified the interim order dated 31-12-2001 made in WPMP.NO. 13456 of 2001 and ordered that the District Collector is at liberty to take action as per the Government orders and to pass appropriate orders after issuing a notice. It was further observed that if the petitioner is in possession he shall not be disturbed. This order was passed by this court on 17-2-2006. Pursuant to the same, the Joint Collector issued the proceedings dated 13-4-2007 cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioner after following the due process of law. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Land Revenue on 15-5-2007 and while taking on file the said appeal, the Chief Commissioner of Land Revenue granted stay of the proceedings dated 13-4-1997 on 16-5-2007. 7. On behalf of the respondent-Government as already it is referred to above, a counter-affidavit has been filed denying the averments made in the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was assigned the land in question in 1980-1983 respectively. The petitioner was a landless poor person and the land assigned for the purpose of agriculture and pursuant to the said assignment, he brought the land into cultivation and he started to cultivation of the land continuously, therefore, he submitted that as alleged in the counter-affidavit by the respondent, the petitioner is not a Class-I contractor. Therefore, the impugned action of the respondent in seeking to cancel the assignment made in favour of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. He also submitted that after twenty years of the assignment, the action of the Government authorities in seeking to cancel the assignment made in favour of the petitioner is improper and illegal. He also submitted that the petitioner has put in all his efforts to develop the land in question and made a valuable land. Therefore, even he was prepared to take the land on the market value. The same was also not considered by the Joint Collector while issuing the proceedings on 13-4-2007. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- Government submitted that as the petitioner is a Class-I contractor, suppressing the same he got assigned the land on two occasions and the Government land is intended to assign in favour of the landless poor but not to the contractors like that of the petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned action of the Government in issuing the impugned G.O., and thereafter, the proceedings dated 13-4-2007 issued by the Joint Collector is proper and in accordance with law. However, the land counsel for the petitioner denied the contention of the respondent- Government. 9. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the year 1980-83 assignment was made when he was a landless poor person and he was assigned the land for the purpose of agriculture and he never violated the conditions of assignment. He brought the land into cultivation by putting all his investment, labour and he developed the land in question and now after twenty years after the assignment, the authorities seek to cancel the assignment, which is illegal and improper and he denied categorically that he is a Class-I contractor. His contention is that he is depending upon the yield in the land that he was getting every year after due cultivation. 10. The facts on record reveals that admittedly pursuant to the orders passed by this court in the vacate stay petition filed by the respondents in the above writ petition on 17-2-2006, the Joint Collector passed an order dated 13-4-2007 cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made an appeal before the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad on 15-5-2007. While taking on file the said appeal, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, vide order dated CCLA’s Ref.No.BC-W1/232/2007, dated 16-5-2007, granted stay of the proceedings dated 13-4-2007 till disposal of the appeal. 11. In view of the same, making any order on the merits of the case is not desirable, as the matter in question is pending by way of an appeal before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and while admitting the appeal referred to above, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration stayed the proceedings of the Joint Collector, pending disposal of the appeal. In view of the same, no orders need be passed in this writ petition. However, it is open for the petitioner to pursue the appeal pending on the file of the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 12. With the above observation, the writ petition is closed accordingly. No costs. JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 19-11-2008 I s L ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSKM}