THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION No.29122 of 2009 Between:
K. Vijaya Kumari PETITIONER AND
1. Government of A.P., rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
2. The subject matter of the writ petition is Ac.0.49 cents in Sy.No.52/2A and Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.52/A of Mangalam Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor District. The petitioner prays for Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in trying to interfere with petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the subject land without recourse to law, as illegal and unconstitutional.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the subject land has been treated as patta land and the earliest sale transaction concerning the subject land was executed as early as on 09.06.1976. After a series of transactions, the petitioner claims to have purchased the subject land from Kesava Reddy S/o. Mohan Reddy and B. Sekhar Babu S/o. Subbanna, by means of registered sale deed dated 15.11.2005. Therefore, the case of petitioner is that since she has purchased the subject land under a registered sale deed for valid consideration from her vendors, the respondents without following the procedure prescribed by law and paying compensation to her, cannot take possession of the subject land.
4. This Court through order dated 31.12.2009 directed respondents – “not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner over the land in an extent of Ac.0.49 cents in Sy.No.52/2A and Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.52/A of Mangalam Village, Chittoor District, if the petitioner is in possession of the said land as on today, without following due process of law”.
5. Respondents filed petition to vacate the said interim order. Briefly stated the case of respondents is that the subject land was assigned to a beneficiary. The alienation of the assigned land is contrary to the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). On account of breach of assignment conditions, the respondents claim to have issued proceedings under the Act for cancellation of assignment in favour of the vendors of the petitioner and resumption of petition land from the petitioner. The respondents rely upon communication dated 9.01.2010 addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad and also the communication dated 9.12.2009 of 4th respondent addressed to the 2nd respondent to legitimise dispossession.
6. Had it been a case where the respondents discharge the onus cast on them, viz., the petition land is the assigned land; that the respondents have followed the procedure stipulated under the Act; that they have put the persons in possession of subject land on notice and conducted enquiry into the basic aspects of the matter and that passed orders and communicated the same to the persons in possession of the land, this Court would have certainly considered that the procedure required by law is, prima facie, followed by respondents. If the finding on this aspect is in favour of respondents, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file an appeal before the appropriate forum against the orders of respondents. Since respondents failed to discharge the onus of showing that the procedure stipulated under the Act 9 of 1977 is followed by them, the action of respondents in trying to disturb or dispossess the petitioner from the land in question is unsustainable and contrary to law.
7. At the time of hearing the learned Government Pleader, having regard to the above constraint in the matter, requested this Court to leave it open to the respondents to initiate action under the provisions of Act 9 of 1977, issue notice to petitioner, conduct enquiry and to pass appropriate orders.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by making the interim order dated 31.12.2009 as final order and the respondents are at liberty to issue fresh notice to the petitioner under Act 9/1977 to cancel the assignment and resume possession of petition land. It is open to the petitioner to raise all the objections including the applicability of Act 9 of 1977 and it is for the competent authority to consider and pass orders.
9. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed.
S.V. BHATT, J.
19th December, 2014 Js.