IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.26581 of 2014 BETWEEN Smt. B. Santhakumari.
AND ... PETITIONER The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. KOTHAPALLI RAM MOHAN CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is directed against the order of resumption passed by the fourth respondent against the petitioner dated 16.08.2014.
2. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in WP.No.16509 of 2014 complaining that the fourth respondent is not issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds in her favour in spite of her application in Form 6-A filed under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act (for short ‘the Act’). The said writ petition was disposed of on 25.07.2014 directing the fourth respondent to consider petitioner’s application and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.
3. It appears that in order to comply with the aforesaid direction, when the fourth respondent was verifying the application of the petitioner, it was noticed that the petitioner has purchased the land, in question, under registered sale deed from an assignee of the Government land and thereupon, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner requiring her to submit explanation, if any.
Petitioner has filed a detailed explanation, primarily, contending that she has been in possession for over 30years, she has purchased the land in good faith and she is also a land less poor person and as such, sought benefit of the provisions of Section 3(5) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act by treating her as bonafide purchaser. Petitioner also sought opportunity for personal hearing.
4. Alleging that the order of this Court, referred to above, for grant of pattadar pass books, is not complied with and also that the opportunity of personal hearing is not given, the impugned order is questioned in the present writ petition and learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner need not avail the remedy of appeal in view of violations, as aforesaid.
5. I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the impugned order itself records in the first three paras that the Tahsildar while verifying the application of the petitioner to comply with the order of this Court, referred to above, noticed that the petitioner has purchased the land from an assignee and thereupon, has given a show cause notice and that the petitioner has, admittedly, filed a detailed explanation, primarily, contending that she has purchased the land in good faith and the transfer of land in her favour is bonafide. Petitioner, therefore, never questioned the assignment or the conditions of assignment nor the violations, as such, except justifying that she is entitled to the benefit under Section 3(5) of the A.P.
Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act.
6. I am unable to see any violation of principles of natural justice so as to vitiate the impugned order. A reading of the order further shows that it is passed on examination of the record and after considering the explanation of the petitioner where she has admitted that she is a retired Government Teacher and receiving Government Pension. The order of resumption, passed against the petitioner, being clearly appeallable, no compelling reason is made out warranting entertainment of this writ petition.
The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority for appropriate relief. However, in order to enable the petitioner to avail appellate remedy to seek appropriate interim or final relief therefrom, the order impugned shall not be given effect to for a period of two (2) weeks from today. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 10, 2014 DSK