HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT Writ Petition No. 19518 of 2008 Date: 18.06.2014 Between:
N.Sankarayya and 15 others.
…Petitioners And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District and another.
…Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT Writ Petition No. 19518 of 2008 O R D E R:
Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for respondents.
The petitioners assail the order of 1st respondent in Case No.B1/5634/2007 dated 02.06.2008 passed under Section 4-A of the A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’).
Through proceedings No.B/4403/2006 dated 19.06.2007, the 2nd respondent ordered resumption of alleged assigned lands in Sy.Nos.83, 83/1, 83/2, 83/3, 95, 95/1, 95/2, 96/A/1, 96/A/2 of Nagaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioners are assignees of small extents of land in those survey numbers. In the month of November, 2007, petitioners filed appeal under Section 4-A of the Act against order of cancellation dated 19.06.2007. The 1st respondent through order dated 02.06.2008 dismissed the appeal. The order is too precise and excerpted to appreciate the legal objection taken in this behalf by the petitioners.
“On perusal of Lower Court record it is revealed that the land in question is a Government land, assigned to the land less poor under the Assignment of Land (Revised Policy) as per the G.O.Ms.No.1142 Rev. Department Dt:18.06.1954 with a condition that the assigned land is heritable but not alienable. The assignee has violated the condition of assignment by selling the land to the petitioner herein hence the MRO/Tahsildar, has taken action under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (P.O.T.) Act, 1977 and passed orders on 19.06.07 U/s. 4 of the A.P.Assigned Lands (POT) Act.
Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the Lower Court and the appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed.”
The appeal against the order of 2nd respondent is provided under Section 4-A of the Act.
The 1st respondent being the first appellate authority against an order of the 2nd respondent ought to have examined the grievance of the petitioners by reference to various grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal, the material considered by 2nd respondent and whether the consideration is justified is fact or law, given them opportunity of hearing and passed appropriate orders.
The order of Revenue Divisional Officer does not disclose independent consideration of the grievance presented for adjudication before him. The petitioners are contending that either the cancellation or resumption of land, as fact, does not arise at all.
The order of 1st respondent is very cryptic and it does not conform to the requirement of adjudication by a statutory authority. The order dated 02.06.2008 is set aside and case remanded to 1st respondent for disposal on merits and in accordance with law. On remand, the 1st respondent shall issue notice to petitioners specifying the date of hearing and proceed to adjudicate the matter.
The interim order granted by this Court shall be in force pending decision by the 1st respondent.
With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
S.V.Bhatt,J Date: 18.06.2014 KLP