IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 26302 of 2014 BETWEEN D.Padmanabha Naidu AND ... PETITIONERS The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner claims that respondent No.3 granted patta to the extent of Ac.4-02 cents of dry land in survey No.90/3 and the remaining extent of land in Survey No.90 i.e., sub-divisions Survey Nos.90/1 and 90/2 is stated to be vacant. With respect to the aforesaid land assigned, petitioner was also given pattadar passbook and title deed bearing khata No.394. The present writ petition is filed on account of a notice having been served on the petitioner by the Tahsildar, respondent No.3 herein, dated 28.08.2014, informing the petitioner that the aforesaid assigned land together with the assigned land of Ac.4-02 cents is proposed to be acquired for the purpose of development of Sri Parasurameswara Swamy Temple as per the proposal of the Tourism Department. It is also stated in the notice that there is no other Government land around the village. Hence, the objections are called for from the petitioner as to why the said assigned land could not be resumed by the Government.
Petitioner objects the said notice by raising various contentions
inter alia that large extents of Government land is available adjacent to the temple whereas the lands, in question, are 3 to 4 KMs away from the temple. He also submits that the present move to take over the assigned lands is politically motivated and in any case,
the Tahsildar is not competent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has already filed his detailed objections to the said notice requesting respondent No.3 to drop the proposal in view of availability of Ac.50-00 of land nearer to the temple than the lands of the petitioner. It is also stated that the Tahsildar has directed the petitioner not to cultivate the land and aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed questioning the notice.
3. Learned Government Pleader has secured instructions, wherein it is stated that the said Devasthanam submitted a proposal and the Government of Andhra Pradesh is desirous to ensure that the heritage site is developed as tourist centre, for which Rs.192-69 lakhs are stated to have been sanctioned. Out of the petitioner’s land, the DKT patta land is stated to be necessary to be resumed and as such a notice was given to the petitioner calling upon him to submit objections if any. Learned Government Pleader, however, proposes to state that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer Joint Collector, Chittoor, if he has any grievance.
4. It is evident from the above that the Government appears to have contemplated resumption of the Government land. However, they have followed procedure by giving notice to the petitioner to which the objections are already field by the petitioner. It is, therefore, necessary that the competent authority must apply its mind and examine the matter from the point of view of availability of Government land in the vicinity vis-à-vis the land under DKT Patta of that the petitioner and then considering the circumstances take appropriate decision in the matter, in any case, as the petitioner is in possession of the land, he shall be free to cultivate the said land and enjoy the same till appropriate decision is taken and communicated to the petitioner.
Writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to ensure that appropriate decision is taken with reference to the objections taken by the petitioner and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, if any such decision is taken, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner giving him reasonable time thereafter and only thereafter, the further perspective action shall be taken. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 11, 2014 LMV