HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM W.P.No. 3814 of 2004 DATE: 24.04.2014 Between:
B. Gnanaprakash and two others .. Petitioners And
1. Mandal Revenue Officer
2. Revenue Divisional Officer
3. District Collector .. Respondents O R D E R:-
The petitioners assert that they are all assignees of an extent of Ac.05.00 cents of land in Sy.No.761/1-A3 situated in Jaguvaripalli village, Pullampet Mandal, Kadapa District by virtue of pattas granted in the year 1968 and since then they have been cultivating the land themselves. While so, it is stated that they had obtained some loans from Co-operative Central Bank, Rajampet for developing and mortgaging the same. They were also issued pattadar passbooks in their favour in 1979 and again on 16.09.1994. It is stated that another extent of Ac.05.00 cents of land, which is adjacent to the land assigned to the petitioners, was converted into house sites and developed into a colony under the name of “Saraswathamma Colony”. Now, the petitioners’ grievance is that on 25.02.2004, at the instigation of the powerful political leaders, the 1st respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer, along with the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Surveyor with a view to converting the petitioners’ land into house-sites, tried to dispossess them from the property without issuing them any notice. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions.
The respondents filed Counter affidavit stating that the petitioners are not residing in Jaguvaripalli village and their whereabouts are not known. As the villagers of Jaguvaripalli Harijanawada approached the District Collector seeking land for house-sites, a burial ground and for agriculture purpose, the District Collector had issued directions to the Mandal Revenue Officer to provide house-sites and a burial ground to Scheduled Caste people of Jaguvaripalli village by cancelling the above DKT pattas. In pursuance of the directions given by the District Collector, Kadapa, a detailed enquiry was conducted at Jaguvaripalli village wherein it is ascertained that an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of land belonging to Boyelapalli Issac, S/o.Abraham in Sy.No.761/1-A3; an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of land belonging to Boyelapalli Devaraj, S/o.Issac in Sy.No.761/1-A4; an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of land belonging to Boyelapalli Jnanaprakash, S/o.Issac in Sy.No.761/1-A5; an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of land belonging to Pulu Lakshmi Devi in Sy.No.761/1-A6 and an extent of Ac.4.00 cents of land belonging to Eruvuri Chinnaiah in Sy.No.761/1-A7 were not under cultivation by the assignees for the last 15 years though the lands are fit for cultivation. It is also stated that show cause notices were issued to the assignees calling for explanation as to why the assignments in their favour should not be cancelled for violation of DKT (D-Form) conditions. As the assignees were not the residents of the village for the past 15 years and their whereabouts were not known, notices were affixed to the sticks and kept the same in the respective assigned lands besides affixing them on the notice board of Gram Panchayat Office of Jaguvaripalli village and Mandal Revenue Office, Pullampet. As no explanation was forthcoming, the lands were resumed by the Government vide orders dated 27.01.2004, and thereafter, the lands were converted into house-sites and pattas were issued to 78 Scheduled Caste families on 21.02.2004. However, it is categorically stated that the lands pertaining to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have not been resumed by the Government so far. It is stated that so far as the 3rd petitioner is concerned, no action, as such, has been initiated against him.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are inherent contradictions in the counter whereby at one place they asserted that the petitioners were not available in the village for the last 15 years, on the other hand, the Mandal Revenue Officer, by orders dated 21.02.2004, asserted that the petitioners had been warned not to enter the lands as the same have been resumed by the Government. He would further urge that no notice was issued to the petitioners or the residents of the village and the lands in issue are being cultivated even as on today.
This Court, by order dated 03.03.2004, granted status quo, and on 08.03.2004, while admitting the writ petition, gave interim direction in W.P.M.P.No. 5034 of 2004 that any patta granted in pursuance of the order dated 21.02.2004 stated to have been passed by the respondents shall be subject to the outcome in the writ petition.
The averments in the counter affidavit would go to support the case of the petitioners that the procedure as contemplated for cancellation of pattas has not been followed. The specific averment in the writ affidavit that the petitioners were granted pattadar passbooks in the year 1995 has not been denied. It is the case of the respondents in the counter that the petitioners’ whereabouts are not known for the past 15 years, as such, show cause notices for violation of patta conditions could not be served on them. It is un-understandable that if the petitioners were not available and their whereabouts were not known for the past 15 years which was prior to the date of issuance of show cause notices i.e. 07.01.2004, how pattadar passbooks were issued in 1979 and also in 1995. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, if the petitioners were not residents of the village for so many years, how they could have been warned not to enter the lands which are alleged to have been resumed by the Government on 21.02.2004. This clearly goes to show that the Mandal Revenue Officer, to say the least, filed the counter affidavit without regard to the truth, and in fact, in the given circumstances, the Tahsildar, who filed the false affidavit before this Court, desired to be prosecuted for perjury.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and in view of the categorical assertion made in the very counter affidavit that so far as the lands of the petitioners are concerned, the same have not been resumed by the Government, it would suffice to declare the resumption orders dated 27.01.2004 alleged to have been passed in respect of the writ petitioners, as arbitrary and illegal. Considering the fact that the then Tahsildar – T. Rajagopal, who had filed false counter affidavit was aged 55 years by the time of filing counter and considering the fact that he retired from service as on today, which otherwise, this Court would have brought him to book for filing a false affidavit, I do not propose to order initiation of any adverse action against him at this point of time.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/- which shall be payable to the petitioners by the 1st respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer. No order as to costs.
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 24.04.2014 bcj